NASASpaceFlight.com Forum
Commercial and US Government Launch Vehicles => Rocket Lab => Topic started by: HMXHMX on 07/29/2014 04:55 am
-
Backed by Khosla Ventures of Silicon Valley, but located in New Zealand (with a US office in LA).
http://www.rocketlabusa.com
Press release:
http://www.rocketlabusa.com/rocket-lab-usa-poised-to-change-the-space-industry/
-
Rocket Lab was the first private company to reach space in the southern hemisphere in 2009 with its Atea 1 suborbital sounding rocket. Following this success the company won contracts with aerospace giants Lockheed Martin, DARPA and Aeroject Rocket-dyne.
This tickled my memory. Various people were saying at the time (2009) that they had zero evidence that it reached space. I defending them by saying that they didn't claim it did, merely that it was about the right size to. As far as I'm aware they never recovered anything or got any data back from the vehicle.
Then there was a 2010 article claiming they had a research grant (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10672754) from the US Office of Naval Research, and they also make the 100 km claim for Atea 1. The project page for their Viscous Liquid Monopropellant (http://www.rocketlabusa.com/about-us/recent-projects/vlm/) also claims DARPA funding, and there's a 2012 video of a test flight.
So there's certainly a capability there, but it's pretty far away from orbit, I'd say. Good luck to 'em.
-
Cool a local launch provider. Could find out where they launch but their Electron LV is a mini me F9. 1x 2nd stage engine and 9x 1st stage engines. If it works for SpaceX why not. No mention of reusability but with this configuration who knows.
-
The target payload is 110kg. Assuming that's for expendable mode, it will be very close to 0 (most likely negative) in a reusable mode.
-
The word "reusable" doesn't appear anywhere on the Rocketlab website.
-
The web page talks about being innovative, but doesn't mention anything innovative about their approach. It seems to me they're somewhere behind Firefly and ahead of ARCA on the plausibility scale for groups trying to make it in the ultra-light-weight orbital launch business.
-
They currently have customers/orders for 30 launches ($150m) a tested engine and LV in production if the web photos are anything to go by. This is far from a paper rocket or startup with a webpage.
-
They currently have customers/orders for 30 launches ($150m) a tested engine and LV in production if the web photos are anything to go by. This is far from a paper rocket or startup with a webpage.
They used the word "commitment" with respect to those 30 launches. It's far from clear how firm that commitment is. Also, launch companies often give steep discounts to early customers, so I don't think we can take $150 million as a given. No list of customers was given. It could be that all 30 launch commitments are from a start-up that hopes to launch a fleet of small satellites but does not yet itself have the funding to do so.
It's also not clear if they've tested or even designed the engine they plan to use for their orbital launch vehicle. They've launched sounding rockets, which is something, but it's not clear that they won't have to develop a whole new engine for their planned orbital launch vehicle.
It's also not clear what their development schedule is, how much funding they think they need to reach operational status, and how much funding they currently have.
-
It's also not clear if they've tested or even designed the engine they plan to use for their orbital launch vehicle. They've launched sounding rockets, which is something, but it's not clear that they won't have to develop a whole new engine for their planned orbital launch vehicle.
The engine was first test fired on December 2013. From their website (http://www.rocketlabusa.com/rutherford-engine-test-fire/):
The new engine, named Rutherford after the famous New Zealand scientist Ernest Rutherford, is a Lox/Kerosene regenerative cooled pump fed engine that is intended to be the future workhorse for the our orbital launcher program. The first test fires demonstrated stable performance and began the characterization phase of the engine program. A high rate of testing is underway with an average of one test fire every two days.
-
The engine was first test fired on December 2013.
Ah, thanks, I missed that.
-
The engine was tested fired in Dec 13. If the last 7 months of development was not going to plan I'd doubt we would have seen today's press release that started this thread.
http://www.rocketlabusa.com/updates/
-
I wouldn't be surprised if their first launch attempt slipped into 2016.
I would be very surprised if their first launch attempt reached orbit.
It's great that they're trying.
-
a price is given on the web page 5 million.
I wonder if the $5 million / launch number assumes the 100 launches / year item just below it...
-
One radical use I thought of for Electron 1st stage is as test vehicle for recovery development . Given it is a mini F9, with some modifications it may be able to be recovered.
At a few million a piece it makes a cheap test bed for a large LV company to prove out the recovery process. Without a 2nd stage and payload it should have the enough performance to do a boost back and landing.
-
Is the KeroLox engine using a turbo pump? Not too much info on the web site.
-
One radical use I thought of for Electron 1st stage is as test vehicle for recovery development . Given it is a mini F9, with some modifications it may be able to be recovered.
At a few million a piece it makes a cheap test bed for a large LV company to prove out the recovery process. Without a 2nd stage and payload it should have the enough performance to do a boost back and landing.
Don't think that idea is practical. As it is, the nominal maximum payload is only 100 kg. Reserving launch mass for recovery propellants and/or recovery mechanisms will result in very little payload.
-
Is the KeroLox engine using a turbo pump? Not too much info on the web site.
It certainly looks like one.
-
You missed to point Zed, read it again.
-
One radical use I thought of for Electron 1st stage is as test vehicle for recovery development . Given it is a mini F9, with some modifications it may be able to be recovered.
At a few million a piece it makes a cheap test bed for a large LV company to prove out the recovery process. Without a 2nd stage and payload it should have the enough performance to do a boost back and landing.
Don't think that idea is practical. As it is, the nominal maximum payload is only 100 kg. Reserving launch mass for recovery propellants and/or recovery mechanisms will result in very little payload.
You missed to point Zed, read it again.
I see your point. But it is still not practical. You will eventually need a full scale test vehicle. Think it is easier to adopt a full size large vehicle for trials then to extrapolate what a large vehicle will do from a sub-scale vehicle's performance IMO.
-
Yea... I am not convinced. Why did they opt to gimbal their engines? Because SpaceX does it? My hunch tells me that they can save a lot of weight by opting to do vector control with differential throttling instead. Get rid of the hydraulic system and piping. At least just for the first stage.
The picture clearly shows a turbopump exhaust on each engine. Why not save that weight and do what the Russians do? Surely they don't need a turbopump for each chamber. Yea, they are touting the engine out capability.
http://www.rocketlabusa.com/about-us/propulsion/rutherford/
A single Rutherford engine pumps rocket-grade kerosene and liquid oxygen from the low pressure tanks into the combustion chamber producing 13.3 kilonewtons of thrust at lift-off. The regeneratively cooled engine passes the kerosene through channels in the chamber walls, allowing Rutherford to run at temperatures far beyond its melting point and at a significantly higher efficiency.
Electron’s propulsion workhorse is the Rutherford rocket engine. Rutherford is the embodiment of power and efficiency; it is the key driver behind Rocket Lab’s ability to provide high-frequency, low-cost launches.
Electron uses two variants of the Rutherford engine, a sea level and a vacuum engine. The vacuum variant differs only in nozzle shape, which is tailored to suit the vacuum conditions outside Earth’s atmosphere. The duplicate engine design for both stages makes Electron highly optimized for mass production.
With nine Rutherford engines on the first stage, Electron can sustain a complete engine loss before launch and still complete its mission, making it one of few launch vehicles with such capability.
The engine is named after the famous New Zealand born physicist Ernest Rutherford.
-
Yea... I am not convinced. Why did they opt to gimbal their engines? Because SpaceX does it? My hunch tells me that they can save a lot of weight by opting to do vector control with differential throttling instead. Get rid of the hydraulic system and piping. At least just for the first stage.
The picture clearly shows a turbopump exhaust on each engine. Why not save that weight and do what the Russians do? Surely they don't need a turbopump for each chamber. Yea, they are touting the engine out capability.
http://www.rocketlabusa.com/about-us/propulsion/rutherford/
A single Rutherford engine pumps rocket-grade kerosene and liquid oxygen from the low pressure tanks into the combustion chamber producing 13.3 kilonewtons of thrust at lift-off. The regeneratively cooled engine passes the kerosene through channels in the chamber walls, allowing Rutherford to run at temperatures far beyond its melting point and at a significantly higher efficiency.
Electron’s propulsion workhorse is the Rutherford rocket engine. Rutherford is the embodiment of power and efficiency; it is the key driver behind Rocket Lab’s ability to provide high-frequency, low-cost launches.
Electron uses two variants of the Rutherford engine, a sea level and a vacuum engine. The vacuum variant differs only in nozzle shape, which is tailored to suit the vacuum conditions outside Earth’s atmosphere. The duplicate engine design for both stages makes Electron highly optimized for mass production.
With nine Rutherford engines on the first stage, Electron can sustain a complete engine loss before launch and still complete its mission, making it one of few launch vehicles with such capability.
The engine is named after the famous New Zealand born physicist Ernest Rutherford.
I don't think differential throttling has the response time to maintain control in this case.
Also it would break the engine out capability.
-
The web page talks about being innovative, but doesn't mention anything innovative about their approach. It seems to me they're somewhere behind Firefly and ahead of ARCA on the plausibility scale for groups trying to make it in the ultra-light-weight orbital launch business.
No one has yet launched an all-composite liquid fueled launch vehicle to orbit. There's the innovation.
- Ed Kyle
-
Their recent projects section mentions the "Ātea 1" sounding rocket: http://www.rocketlabusa.com/about-us/recent-projects/atea-1/
Ātea-1 is a two-stage sub-orbital vehicle capable of carrying payloads of 2 kg up to 150 km altitude. This launch vehicle is able to provide the international science community with a quick-response, mobile launch solution, with a focus on flexibility and rapid turnaround.
Does anyone know if it has flown since the test flight in 2009?
-
Ātea hasn't. They moved on to their VLM work (http://www.rocketlabusa.com/category/rocket-lab-news/vlm/), and now Electron.
I'm listening to this podcast (http://www.nztechpodcast.com/audio/nztechpodcast190.mp3) (RocketLab section starts about half way through). Peter Beck talks about launching weekly / 50 launches per year. When asked about reusability he says "we'll try to reuse whatever we can, it'd be stupid not to". Clearly not the critical path right now.
Here's some pictures from the VIP event (http://www.rocketlabusa.com/rocket-lab-unveils-electron-photos-from-the-vip-event/). Not much to see.
-
Interesting photo on the scale of the Rutherford engine from Rocket Lab press photo on Doug Messier's Parabolic web site. link (http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/07/30/rocket-lab-funding-sources/#more-53025) That is Peter Beck founder & CEO of Rocket Lab standing next to the Electron core, reminisce of Elon Musk next to his Falcon 1 photo.
Question. If the Electron core is 1 m diameter, can anyone estimate the nozzle diameter of the Rutherford engine? I think it about 18 cm from looking at the photo.
-
The podcast was a good find.
We now know primary launch site is NZ and it is designed for our windy conditions. I' m guessing the launch site will be in northland as it's airspace has low air traffic and is only a few hours drive from factory. Trucking a few tonnes of LOX up country shouldn' t be a problem.
There is no current serious competition in this LV category.
At present cubesats have to go where ever the primary payload is going. With Electron's 3rd stage they can place each individual cubesat exactly. The cubesat will also have more options for its own propulsion system/ fuel.
-
110 kg is a "small sat", not a cubesat.
-
110 kg is a "small sat", not a cubesat.
Agreed. It's at least 10x a nanosat, which is about what most 1U to 3U cubesats mass out at.
I think 110 kg may be used to be called a minisat (larger than microsat at 10-100 kg), but I'm not sure those names ever caught on, except for nanosat (1-10 kg).
-
So did the Atea 2 project die then?
-
You are right in that a single 110kg satellite is called a small sat, but I'm picking the majority of its payloads will be launches of multiple cubesats using a dispenser.
These are two direct competitors, there may be more.
Virgin's launcher is also rated at 100kg to Sun synchronous LEO and is priced at < $10m.
Firefly alpha is in slightly different class of 400kg LEO, price is $8m.
http://www.virgingalactic.com/launcherOne/performance-and-specification/
http://www.fireflyspace.com/vehicles/firefly-a
-
So did the Atea 2 project die then?
I don't remember hearing anything about it. Source?
-
Interesting photo on the scale of the Rutherford engine from Rocket Lab press photo on Doug Messier's Parabolic web site. That is Peter Beck founder & CEO of Rocket Lab standing next to the Electron core, reminisce of Elon Musk next to his Falcon 1 photo.
I'm wondering, is Rutherford stage combustion engine? I don't see any turbine exhaust nozzle on that picture.
-
Interesting photo on the scale of the Rutherford engine from Rocket Lab press photo on Doug Messier's Parabolic web site. That is Peter Beck founder & CEO of Rocket Lab standing next to the Electron core, reminisce of Elon Musk next to his Falcon 1 photo.
I'm wondering, is Rutherford stage combustion engine? I don't see any turbine exhaust nozzle on that picture.
Kerolox staged combustion? Pretty unlikely.
-
Interesting photo on the scale of the Rutherford engine from Rocket Lab press photo on Doug Messier's Parabolic web site. link (http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/07/30/rocket-lab-funding-sources/#more-53025) That is Peter Beck founder & CEO of Rocket Lab standing next to the Electron core, reminisce of Elon Musk next to his Falcon 1 photo.
Question. If the Electron core is 1 m diameter, can anyone estimate the nozzle diameter of the Rutherford engine? I think it about 18 cm from looking at the photo.
No downcomers, no hold downs, no connectors. It just seems like an engineering article. There's something that just seems too plain. Actual flight hardware has access doors, connectors for fluids, electricity and communications, mechanical hold downs, a couple of tubes for data wires and pressurization gases, etc.
-
We now know primary launch site is NZ and it is designed for our windy conditions. I' m guessing the launch site will be in northland as it's airspace has low air traffic and is only a few hours drive from factory. Trucking a few tonnes of LOX up country shouldn' t be a problem.
Looks like one of the Seminar notices on the GNC system is talking about a Birdling's Flat location:
<<https://www.facebook.com/DepartmentOfElectricalAndComputerEngineering/posts/505832642813622 (https://www.facebook.com/DepartmentOfElectricalAndComputerEngineering/posts/505832642813622)>>
-
If I were going to name a Kiwi rocket engine, I think I'd call it Pickering (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hayward_Pickering).
-
If I were going to name a Kiwi rocket engine, I think I'd call it Pickering (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hayward_Pickering).
Not a very sexy name for a rocket but they may name a future engine after him.
-
I'm wondering, is Rutherford stage combustion engine? I don't see any turbine exhaust nozzle on that picture.
Like others have said, probably a mockup. Can't discount expander either. We've been finicky about it, but it can be done with LOX, or with third fluid cooling. Actually, most of the reason RP-1 exists is for its use as a coolant. Use something else for cooling, and you could use a far more mundane kerosene.
Looks like the chamber is DMLS-made, from their closeup photo (http://www.rocketlabusa.com/about-us/propulsion/rutherford/). That contour is bizarre too, curious what's going on there. Maybe it's just the volute for the cooling jacket and the closeup makes it looks weird?
-
Interesting photo on the scale of the Rutherford engine from Rocket Lab press photo on Doug Messier's Parabolic web site. That is Peter Beck founder & CEO of Rocket Lab standing next to the Electron core, reminisce of Elon Musk next to his Falcon 1 photo.
I'm wondering, is Rutherford stage combustion engine? I don't see any turbine exhaust nozzle on that picture.
I read somewhere on their site the Rutherford got channel wall on the nozzle for kerosene flow for cooling. Maybe for turbine exhaust as well. Doubt the Rutherford is a stage combustion engine, don't think there is space above the combustion chambers for SC plumbing for 9 engines.
-
Interesting photo on the scale of the Rutherford engine from Rocket Lab press photo on Doug Messier's Parabolic web site. link (http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/07/30/rocket-lab-funding-sources/#more-53025) That is Peter Beck founder & CEO of Rocket Lab standing next to the Electron core, reminisce of Elon Musk next to his Falcon 1 photo.
Question. If the Electron core is 1 m diameter, can anyone estimate the nozzle diameter of the Rutherford engine? I think it about 18 cm from looking at the photo.
No downcomers, no hold downs, no connectors. It just seems like an engineering article. There's something that just seems too plain. Actual flight hardware has access doors, connectors for fluids, electricity and communications, mechanical hold downs, a couple of tubes for data wires and pressurization gases, etc.
It is a composite structure. Maybe all the connections are on the side away from the camera view. After all this is a publicity photo. It could also be a mock-up.
-
Generation Orbit Launch Services is another up an coming small sat launcher. At 50kg it is lighter again.
http://www.generationorbit.com/golauncher2.html
-
It might be a tipping point for Australia to set up Commonwealth Space Agency and space program after all. C'mon Kiwi, c'mon!
-
Interesting photo on the scale of the Rutherford engine from Rocket Lab press photo on Doug Messier's Parabolic web site. That is Peter Beck founder & CEO of Rocket Lab standing next to the Electron core, reminisce of Elon Musk next to his Falcon 1 photo.
I'm wondering, is Rutherford stage combustion engine? I don't see any turbine exhaust nozzle on that picture.
Rutherford may have a H2O2 powered gas generator to power it's turbopump. If you look closely at the photo of a test firing of Rutherford on Rocket Lab's website you can see what looks like a cloud of steam in the top of the test stand. This steam could well be from the decomposition of H2O2 driving the pump.
-
It might be a tipping point for Australia to set up Commonwealth Space Agency and space program after all. C'mon Kiwi, c'mon!
Robert Meurer from this space show mention that a few countries have created space agencies in last year. NZ needs to catch up especially as we will soon have a LV capable of putting a man space, even if it is a one way trip.
We are definitely at beginning of a new space age, 45 years after moon landing things are finally start to happen.
-
Interesting photo on the scale of the Rutherford engine from Rocket Lab press photo on Doug Messier's Parabolic web site. link (http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/07/30/rocket-lab-funding-sources/#more-53025) That is Peter Beck founder & CEO of Rocket Lab standing next to the Electron core, reminisce of Elon Musk next to his Falcon 1 photo.
Question. If the Electron core is 1 m diameter, can anyone estimate the nozzle diameter of the Rutherford engine? I think it about 18 cm from looking at the photo.
No downcomers, no hold downs, no connectors. It just seems like an engineering article. There's something that just seems too plain. Actual flight hardware has access doors, connectors for fluids, electricity and communications, mechanical hold downs, a couple of tubes for data wires and pressurization gases, etc.
It is a composite structure. Maybe all the connections are on the side away from the camera view. After all this is a publicity photo. It could also be a mock-up.
Surely you're not suggesting that the hold-downs are only on one side.
-
Doubt the Rutherford is a stage combustion engine, don't think there is space above the combustion chambers for SC plumbing for 9 engines.
On top of that, the thrust density is pretty low -- about 411 kN/m2 at sea level, based on a nozzle exit diameter of 0.2 m as eyeballed from the photo above (and consistent with the quoted difference in sea-level and maximum, presumably vacuum, thrusts). That suggests a relatively low chamber pressure, which in turn lies outside the regime in which staged combustion really shines.
-
Looks like the chamber is DMLS-made....
Pardon my ignorance, but what is DMLS?
EDIT: Corrected quote.
-
So we have three recently-proposed launch vehicles, Falcon 9, Firefly and Electron, each of which has a single lox-hydrocarbon engine on the second stage and a large cluster of sea-level versions of the same engine on the first stage. It seems to be the new paradigm. Though you could argue it goes all the way back to the Saturn B designs circa 1960 -- eight H-1s for the first stage and a small cluster of vacuum-optimised H-1s for the second stage.
Of course, Electron differs in having a third stage. Do we know anything about it? Might it be solid?
-
Looks like the chamber is DMLS-made space age, 45 years after moon landing things are finally start to happen.
Pardon my ignorance, but what is DMLS?
I think it's Direct Metal Laser Sintering, a technique for 3D printing out of metal.
-
So we have three recently-proposed launch vehicles, Falcon 9, Firefly and Electron, each of which has a single lox-hydrocarbon engine on the second stage and a large cluster of sea-level versions of the same engine on the first stage. It seems to be the new paradigm. Though you could argue it goes all the way back to the Saturn B designs circa 1960 -- eight H-1s for the first stage and a small cluster of vacuum-optimised H-1s for the second stage.
Of course, Electron differs in having a third stage. Do we know anything about it? Might it be solid?
The vehicle description states solid propellant 3rd stage. "Solid" could be bit misleading in this case if it uses VLM.see link.
http://www.rocketlabusa.com/about-us/propulsion/high-density-monopropellant/
http://www.google.com/patents/US20120234196
-
More info on their technology and history.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/08/01/rocket-labs-history/
-
Looks like the chamber is DMLS-made space age, 45 years after moon landing things are finally start to happen.
Pardon my ignorance, but what is DMLS?
As has been said, Direct Metal Laser Sintering. The surface finish is fairly characteristic. So, he's probably printing the chamber, including cooling passages, as a single piece. Possibly injector too? Though I worry about tolerances in that case. Also, I think you conflated my quote with someone else's. I didn't say that "45 years" bit.
-
Thanks. And sorry -- I've corrected my post.
-
Interesting photo on the scale of the Rutherford engine from Rocket Lab press photo on Doug Messier's Parabolic web site. link (http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/07/30/rocket-lab-funding-sources/#more-53025) That is Peter Beck founder & CEO of Rocket Lab standing next to the Electron core, reminisce of Elon Musk next to his Falcon 1 photo.
Question. If the Electron core is 1 m diameter, can anyone estimate the nozzle diameter of the Rutherford engine? I think it about 18 cm from looking at the photo.
No downcomers, no hold downs, no connectors. It just seems like an engineering article. There's something that just seems too plain. Actual flight hardware has access doors, connectors for fluids, electricity and communications, mechanical hold downs, a couple of tubes for data wires and pressurization gases, etc.
It is a composite structure. Maybe all the connections are on the side away from the camera view. After all this is a publicity photo. It could also be a mock-up.
Surely you're not suggesting that the hold-downs are only on one side.
Didn't say anything about hold-downs, just connectors. ::)
-
More info on their technology and history.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/08/01/rocket-labs-history/
The info on the bottom is interesting but the video just comes across as silly. He's comparing multi-billion dollar launch vehicles capable of tremendous lift capability to a rocket that only lifts 110 kilo's. At $5 million that is not exactly cheap for multiple sat constellations. Makes more sense to do what Orbcomm just did or Iridium will do, plus neither of those small sats are small enough to fit on this rocket. This really only makes sense for the few things you would send up a single one and it needs to be in an orbit it can't reach as a secondary.
Interesting but I fear its just too small for the price.
-
More info on their technology and history.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/08/01/rocket-labs-history/
The info on the bottom is interesting but the video just comes across as silly. He's comparing multi-billion dollar launch vehicles capable of tremendous lift capability to a rocket that only lifts 110 kilo's. At $5 million that is not exactly cheap for multiple sat constellations. Makes more sense to do what Orbcomm just did or Iridium will do, plus neither of those small sats are small enough to fit on this rocket. This really only makes sense for the few things you would send up a single one and it needs to be in an orbit it can't reach as a secondary.
Interesting but I fear its just too small for the price.
My speculation. There might be some sort of a Heavy version of the Electron in the future. Perhaps even a 5 or 7 core super Heavy version. ;D
-
More info on their technology and history.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/08/01/rocket-labs-history/
The info on the bottom is interesting but the video just comes across as silly. He's comparing multi-billion dollar launch vehicles capable of tremendous lift capability to a rocket that only lifts 110 kilo's. At $5 million that is not exactly cheap for multiple sat constellations. Makes more sense to do what Orbcomm just did or Iridium will do, plus neither of those small sats are small enough to fit on this rocket. This really only makes sense for the few things you would send up a single one and it needs to be in an orbit it can't reach as a secondary.
Interesting but I fear its just too small for the price.
My speculation. There might be some sort of a Heavy version of the Electron in the future. Perhaps even a 5 or 7 core super Heavy version. ;D
Let's assume adding a core costs half the $5 million price of a single-core launch. That 7-core super-heavy now costs $20 million -- to launch perhaps 500 kg of payload to LEO. That's even less compelling than the single-core version.
-
Another plus to their choice of LV architecture.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35319.msg1237334.msg#1237334
-
My speculation. There might be some sort of a Heavy version of the Electron in the future. Perhaps even a 5 or 7 core super Heavy version.
I wondered the same. The otrag unit of the teens?
-
Looks like the chamber is DMLS-made space age, 45 years after moon landing things are finally start to happen.
Pardon my ignorance, but what is DMLS?
I think it's Direct Metal Laser Sintering, a technique for 3D printing out of metal.
That is right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_metal_laser_sintering (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_metal_laser_sintering)
and this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_printing#Spaceflight (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_printing#Spaceflight)
SpaceX is mentioned in both; but better/more in the second of the two.
-
My speculation. There might be some sort of a Heavy version of the Electron in the future. Perhaps even a 5 or 7 core super Heavy version.
I wondered the same. The otrag unit of the teens?
"Sometimes a cigar is just a good smoke" (dubious authorship)
And perhaps he means what he says: This is a launcher for 110 kg payloads.
This already fights dis-economies of scale. Each engine probably attaches with the same number of bolts and hydraulic lines as a Merlin. The idea of seven times nine engines for a smallsat launcher strains credibility.
There are any number of efforts to build smallsat launchers. People do pursue this potential market.
Do we have a thread that lists (hopefully without tens of pages of opinions) a recent history of rocket development programs of this type? Something with links to company initial announcements, test flights, major successes or failures, and the occasional admission of failure?
-
There are any number of efforts to build smallsat launchers. People do pursue this potential market.
They pursue it because they really, really want to build rockets and they can't afford to even attempt anything bigger.
-
There are any number of efforts to build smallsat launchers. People do pursue this potential market.
They pursue it because they really, really want to build rockets and they can't afford to even attempt anything bigger.
DARPA can't afford anything larger?
What you say may be true for most of the efforts but that doesn't prove or disprove anything.
I think it more likely that this effort is sincere in going for the stated target.
-
There are any number of efforts to build smallsat launchers. People do pursue this potential market.
They pursue it because they really, really want to build rockets and they can't afford to even attempt anything bigger.
DARPA can't afford anything larger?
You said, "People do pursue this potential market." That implies "people" refers to the people setting up companies like RocketLab and Firefly. So it is those people I was referring to as not being able to afford anything bigger.
I'm not sure how you made the leap from there to DARPA. But it also does happen that DARPA can't afford a program to develop a whole new launcher for large satellites, which is why they only have a program to develop a small satellite launcher.
What you say may be true for most of the efforts but that doesn't prove or disprove anything.
I think it more likely that this effort is sincere in going for the stated target.
I was replying to your quote that people do pursue this market, which in turn was a reply to speculation by others that RocketLab might plan to evolve to larger launchers in the future. Your reply implied you thought that people target the small satellite market for its own sake because it was an attractive market in and of itself.
So, the point of my reply was that I think it likely that the only reason most companies target the small satellite market is that it is all they can afford. It seems reasonable that most would target the markets for larger payloads if they could, and if they are successful building a small launcher, they might gain access to the resources that would let them target the larger satellite market.
So, I think speculation that RocketLab might expand to larger payloads is completely reasonable.
-
The F9 class LV market is well supported, very expensive to enter and has limited payloads.
The cubesat market is not very supported by dedicated launches, is lot less expensive to enter. The payload market is growing rapidly.
Rocketlab' s forecast of 30+ ($150m) a year is not small change.
-
The F9 class LV market is well supported, very expensive to enter and has limited payloads.
The cubesat market is not very supported by dedicated launches, is lot less expensive to enter. The payload market is growing rapidly.
Rocketlab' s forecast of 30+ ($150m) a year is not small change.
It's much cheaper to launch cubesats and other small satellites as secondaries on larger launchers or to bunch them up into a dedicate launch of many small satellites on one of the large launchers. It's so much cheaper that it makes it worth it for small satellite operators to compromise on orbital plane and schedule to avoid a dedicated launcher.
The cubesat and smallsat industries are growing. That spells disaster for small launchers, because the more cubesats and smallsats there are looking for rides to orbit, the more orbits will be served by dedicated launches of large launchers carrying many small satellites, and the more often they'll fly.
And as SpaceX develops reusability, it will only make the situation worse for small launchers. Who in their right mind would pay $5 million for 100 kg to LEO when a reusable Falcon 9 can carry 100 times as much for $5-7 million?
-
Responsiveness is the business case here.
The backlog for SpaceX is already longer than most business plans can handle.
There's nothing wrong with a little competition.
-
So did the Atea 2 project die then?
I don't remember hearing anything about it. Source?
http://web.archive.org/web/20131127062937/http://www.rocketlab.co.nz/space-and-defense/sounding-rockets/
-
What I find funny, is that this Electron and also the Firefly launcher, both use webpages that are all-but blatant copies of Space-X's vehicle page. Same grey background, mostly the same fonts and sizes and even the same general layout.
Compare the pages for yourself:
http://www.rocketlabusa.com/
http://www.fireflyspace.com/vehicles/firefly-a
http://www.spacex.com/falcon9
So much for original thinking...
-MG.
-
So did the Atea 2 project die then?
I don't remember hearing anything about it. Source?
http://web.archive.org/web/20131127062937/http://www.rocketlab.co.nz/space-and-defense/sounding-rockets/
Thanks. Yes, as far as I know it never flew.
-
{snip}
And as SpaceX develops reusability, it will only make the situation worse for small launchers. Who in their right mind would pay $5 million for 100 kg to LEO when a reusable Falcon 9 can carry 100 times as much for $5-7 million?
The client for the small launcher can specify the orbit where as the secondary payloads on the Falcon 9 have to use what is given.
-
{snip}
And as SpaceX develops reusability, it will only make the situation worse for small launchers. Who in their right mind would pay $5 million for 100 kg to LEO when a reusable Falcon 9 can carry 100 times as much for $5-7 million?
The client for the small launcher can specify the orbit where as the secondary payloads on the Falcon 9 have to use what is given.
.. and the launch schedule.
-
It is a composite structure. Maybe all the connections are on the side away from the camera view. After all this is a publicity photo. It could also be a mock-up.
Surely you're not suggesting that the hold-downs are only on one side.
The hold-downs are actually there - 4 of them. Just look closer. (on the bottom around the engines)
-
What I find funny, is that this Electron and also the Firefly launcher, both use webpages that are all-but blatant copies of Space-X's vehicle page. Same grey background, mostly the same fonts and sizes and even the same general layout.
Another reason to define the "Falcon 9 paradigm (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35300.msg1237399#msg1237399)."
-
Emulating the perceived market leader is pretty common in every industry.
-
It is. But seeing SpaceX as an established market leader is a rather new phenomenon.
-
At the stated price, that's $45,000/kg to LEO. That's not a bargain basement price at all.
-
People a trying to compare apples to oranges.
Think of Electron as a taxi for delivering 6 cubesats to their individual destinations/orbits at time of the customers choosing.
While F9 is a bus which can do the same for 60 cubesats if customer can afford to build 60 and the launch costs to deliver them all at once.
Alternatively we can use rideshare where all 6 cubesats are dropped off at the city depot and have to make their own way to their destinations. Bus will leave at what ever time if at all and cubesats maybe kicked off at last minute as bus is to crowded.
If your business plan relied on getting 6 cubesats into space reliably what delivery method would you use. Remember these cubesats a costing every minute they are not in space.
-
At the stated price, that's $45,000/kg to LEO. That's not a bargain basement price at all.
You're confusing "cheap" with "good value".
$3 for a cup of coffee is cheap, but you'd be a sucker to pay that much if you were buying in bulk.
-
At the stated price, that's $45,000/kg to LEO. That's not a bargain basement price at all.
You're confusing "cheap" with "good value".
$3 for a cup of coffee is cheap, but you'd be a sucker to pay that much if you were buying in bulk.
Wait, what kind of "bulk" are we talking about here 'cause all I get is strange looks when I go looking for the "55-gallon drum" size bulk coffee at 7/11 or Starbucks....
(20 years in the military and "morning coffee" is not just a job, its an adventure!)
Randy
-
all I get is strange looks when I go looking for the "55-gallon drum" size bulk coffee at 7/11 or Starbucks....
Which is a great analogy for looking for low $/kg from a smallsat launcher.
If you want bulk prices, go to Walmart or Costco, and expect to part with a lot more cash in one go. When you take into account your cashflow and the time value of money you might not even end up paying less overall.
But it's not just about price. If Rocket Lab are successful at maintaining a regular launch cadence, there will be customers that value responsiveness over going as a secondary. It's important to remember that we're not talking about cubesats here. These are smallsats with propulsion - notoriously difficult to get launched as secondaries. So far, that's meant you had to find other smallsats to share a ride with - sometimes even your competitors!
-
It might be a tipping point for Australia to set up Commonwealth Space Agency and space program after all. C'mon Kiwi, c'mon!
Uhm, why? New Zealand isn't signatory/ratifier of the 1979 Moon treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_Treaty#Ratification) Australia is and therefore ANY profit made in space is going to have to be given to the UN for "redistribution" as a "heritage of all mankind" if operations are conducted from Australia.
No real incentive I'd think.
Randy
-
It might be a tipping point for Australia to set up Commonwealth Space Agency and space program after all. C'mon Kiwi, c'mon!
Uhm, why? New Zealand isn't signatory/ratifier of the 1979 Moon treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_Treaty#Ratification) Australia is and therefore ANY profit made in space is going to have to be given to the UN for "redistribution" as a "heritage of all mankind" if operations are conducted from Australia.
No real incentive I'd think.
Wrong. [/Jim mode]
I don't know where you get this nonsense from.
-
My speculation. There might be some sort of a Heavy version of the Electron in the future. Perhaps even a 5 or 7 core super Heavy version.
I wondered the same. The otrag unit of the teens?
"OTRAG" technology and support of the original inventor has gone to InterOrbital :)
I'm really trying to wrap my head around why this is designed the way it is because I've only seen a very few, specific, cases where a small launcher wants/needs multiple engines on it and those were almost always aerospikes or for other altitude compensation reasons. Exactly what the Electron doesn't need.
Then again from "that-part-of-the-worlds" history I'm wondering why they use LOX at all given H2O2 experience but that's probably more "English" than ANZac :)
And while I'm ON that subject anyway the two launchers aren't all that different are they:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Arrow
Randy
-
There are any number of efforts to build smallsat launchers. People do pursue this potential market.
They pursue it because they really, really want to build rockets and they can't afford to even attempt anything bigger.
DARPA can't afford anything larger?
Often time the answer is actually yes in fact :) Depends on how many "failures" they've lost money on previously :)
What you say may be true for most of the efforts but that doesn't prove or disprove anything.
I think it more likely that this effort is sincere in going for the stated target.
Yes but... :) One thing that becomes very clear, very fast in any aerospace project is that "size matters" especially when paying for and building a "prototype" or test article. Smaller costs far less than larger despite any "operational" penalties. Building a 1/6th test article costs far less than 1/6th of the price of a full scale article even if you have to build all the infrastructure for building the 1/6th and the full scale as well.
Still in this particular case I'd go with the idea they are shooting for exactly what they say the are.
However, on the gripping hand this is pretty much what I "baseline" for a starting an LV program because I'm pretty sure this is all I could afford. (Or technically get someone with some actual money to afford :) )
Randy
-
What I find funny, is that this Electron and also the Firefly launcher, both use webpages that are all-but blatant copies of Space-X's vehicle page. Same grey background, mostly the same fonts and sizes and even the same general layout.
Compare the pages for yourself:
http://www.rocketlabusa.com/
http://www.fireflyspace.com/vehicles/firefly-a
http://www.spacex.com/falcon9
So much for original thinking...
You're going to try and make an "issue" of the fact that they all use the same web-page designer? Probably the ONLY person in the situation at the moment who's making any money I might add :)
Randy
-
So we have three recently-proposed launch vehicles, Falcon 9, Firefly and Electron, each of which has a single lox-hydrocarbon engine on the second stage and a large cluster of sea-level versions of the same engine on the first stage. It seems to be the new paradigm. Though you could argue it goes all the way back to the Saturn B designs circa 1960 -- eight H-1s for the first stage and a small cluster of vacuum-optimised H-1s for the second stage.
Hmmm, no clustered engines have been a "thing" for a long time, and historically its because it was a lot easier to make ONE engine and then bolt on as many as you needed. Then take the same engine and put a larger nozzle on it for high altitude use. "Optimized" small number engines was pretty much always aimed at LH2/LOx because everyone KNEW that they would be killer upper stage engines. Everything else was simply for biding time till we had "hydrogen" engines which were going to be the end all, be all engine and we'd never use/need anything else.
(No little bit of myopia to early rocket engineering I've noted from history :) )
The drive towards single engine on each stage was simply to reduce the count of parts that could possibly fail during launch. It's pretty much been "common wisdom" that with a small launcher you already wanted to aim at as few parts as possible, with this only recently being questioned with designs such as the Electron and Firefly. Commonality of propellant and engines has always seemed to be a "standard" for first and second stages from what I can see with third or more usually going for maximum performance (LH2/Lox) or density (solid) as a result.
Specifically for small launchers where in many cases small performance advantages have bigger effects, it has always seemed to me you'd want to put the highest density propellant with the "simplest" (there are degrees here) most robust engines in the first stage and higher performance (but still with robustness and cost in mind) engines on the second stage so as to if at all possible not NEED a third stage.
Seems I'm alone though in that philosophy :)
(In case anyone is interested: H2O2/Kero regenerative, pump fed first stage with a regenerative, pump fed LOx/Sub-Cooled Propane engine second stage = smallest possible, highest performance :) )
Anyone wishing to steal the "concept" is welcome to it :)
Randy
-
It might be a tipping point for Australia to set up Commonwealth Space Agency and space program after all. C'mon Kiwi, c'mon!
Uhm, why? New Zealand isn't signatory/ratifier of the 1979 Moon treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_Treaty#Ratification) Australia is and therefore ANY profit made in space is going to have to be given to the UN for "redistribution" as a "heritage of all mankind" if operations are conducted from Australia.
No real incentive I'd think.
Wrong. [/Jim mode]
I don't know where you get this nonsense from.
My paper work including the full treaty which was used to convince Congress the thing was a pile of doggy-do searching for a place to sit :)
It may be the ONLY thing the L5 Society managed to do, but getting the US to stay out of that thing was THE one it it was it :)
Despite the minimal treatment Wikipedia gives it it includes a link to the full wording of the treaty AND the efforts to establish the UN commission that will be in charge of the a fore mentioned redistribution. In that exact same manner for the same process for any and all "seabed" mining that is covered under the 1979 treaty of the seas from which the wording was directly taken.
The US Congress DID sign and ratify THAT mess and has been working hard to undo it ever since. Mostly because it turns out Howard Hughes was NOT building a certain ship in order to strip the seabeds of minerals and make an obscene profit at the expense of the "common heritage of all mankind" :)
He was simply going after a sunken Soviet submarine but wasn't telling anyone that :)
You will note that "it has not been ratified by any state which engages in self-launched manned space exploration or has plans to do so" including the Russians (Soviets at the time) who were the major force BEHIND the treaty in the first place? Even the Chinese don't want anything to do with it for a reason :)
Randy
-
It might be a tipping point for Australia to set up Commonwealth Space Agency and space program after all. C'mon Kiwi, c'mon!
Uhm, why? New Zealand isn't signatory/ratifier of the 1979 Moon treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_Treaty#Ratification) Australia is and therefore ANY profit made in space is going to have to be given to the UN for "redistribution" as a "heritage of all mankind" if operations are conducted from Australia.
No real incentive I'd think.
Wrong. [/Jim mode]
I don't know where you get this nonsense from.
[incomprehensible self serving rant trimmed]
What the heck does any of that have to do with launch providers for smallsats?
-
Multiple engine 1st stage LVs using same engine reduces the development costs to one engine.
Developing a large 1st stage engine is a lot more expensive than the 2nd stage engine.
With 3D printing build costs are reduced and will only get cheaper in time. ($10,000 for NX-01 which is similar size engine).
Only one engine production line.
Any enhancements benefit both stages.
Engine out capability is added bonus along with option of powered recovery.
-
It might be a tipping point for Australia to set up Commonwealth Space Agency and space program after all. C'mon Kiwi, c'mon!
Uhm, why? New Zealand isn't signatory/ratifier of the 1979 Moon treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_Treaty#Ratification) Australia is and therefore ANY profit made in space is going to have to be given to the UN for "redistribution" as a "heritage of all mankind" if operations are conducted from Australia.
No real incentive I'd think.
Wrong. [/Jim mode]
I don't know where you get this nonsense from.
[incomprehensible self serving rant trimmed]
What the heck does any of that have to do with launch providers for smallsats?
Commercial launches of ANY sat from Australia (per the quoted post) are a non-starter due to the treaty. YOU stated this was "wrong" and asked where I got the information from. You then "trimmed" the relevant information and then ask how it's relevant. Hope that help you understand things :)
Bottom line is that the company of which this thread speaks is launching from New Zealand and therefore has no connection with or from Australia which the cited post was "hoping" would become involved. If they do this company is dead unless they move operations to the US.
"Relevance" is back in your court... literally actually :)
Randy
-
Multiple engine 1st stage LVs using same engine reduces the development costs to one engine.
Still technically leaves you with the issue of much higher parts count and failure points. Which was the whole 'reason' for going to one engine in the first place.
Developing a large 1st stage engine is a lot more expensive than the 2nd stage engine.
Partially? How about we say that developing a LARGE first stage engine (to replace the multiple small ones) would be more expensive given manufacturing technology as per the next part?
With 3D printing build costs are reduced and will only get cheaper in time. ($10,000 for NX-01 which is similar size engine).
True and applicable per the above. But let me note that for SMALL rockets the engine costs were never that much of an issue anyway. I've seen higher performance engines offered that were made using older technology with similar pricing and better if they'd ever gotten to mass production. So I still don't "see" all the much advantage over and above its made "in-house".
Only one engine production line.
Any enhancements benefit both stages.
I'll buy into these two as a given :)
Engine out capability is added bonus along with option of powered recovery.
Former is a maybe advantage but the latter is VERY iffy given the size of launcher. Then again I LIKE the idea no matter the size, so I might as well agree here too :)
Randy
-
Commercial launches of ANY sat from Australia (per the quoted post) are a non-starter due to the treaty. YOU stated this was "wrong" and asked where I got the information from.
I also said it was nonsense. I've known people who have gotten very far into the process of launching commercial payloads from Australia. They've never had any problems with this supposed showstopper. I think you're just making stuff up.
Bottom line is that the company of which this thread speaks is launching from New Zealand and therefore has no connection with or from Australia which the cited post was "hoping" would become involved.
I too am baffled as to why anyone brought this up.. I know people like to joke that there's some sort of rivalry between Australia and New Zealand, but it's just that.
If they do this company is dead unless they move operations to the US.
What the heck are you talking about now??
-
Rocketlab is USA listed company with a lot of profits going to its USA share holders. Beck will be a significant shareholder with maybe a few other NZers.
All money spent on manufacturing and launches will stay in NZ economy, so it is still good for NZ.
Unlike other manufacturing I can't see it moving to China. ITAR has some pluses.
-
There is a TMRO (formerly spacevidcast) webcast interview with the Rocket Lab USA founder & CEO Peter Beck about the Electron rocket and the Rutherford engine.
http://youtu.be/tkmrZVDmio4
Webcast was uploaded on August 10th. Interview is from 17:55 to 31:44
Apparently from webcast. The Electron rocket body and tankage got heritage from carbon composite work New Zealand companies did for America's Cup boat races. Come to think of it, the rocket does look like an over-sized sail mast.
-
Apparently from webcast. The Electron rocket body and tankage got heritage from carbon composite work New Zealand companies did for America's Cup boat races. Come to think of it, the rocket does look like an over-sized sail mast.
New Zealand not only built its own boats, but built many of the parts for the USA Team Oracle boat - not to mention providing the CEO, the skipper, the strategist, and most of the crew for the "USA" boat!
- Ed Kyle
-
Just watched the show, some interesting points.
1) Choose the launch site first then designed LV for local weather so it can launch weekly.
2) Waited until they had hardware(working engine) before going public.
To many new space companies go public with paper rockets or hardware (sounds a bit like a competing black LV).
3) Build a tank(fuselage?) every 2 days.
4) Were overwhelmed by the response from potential customers after going public.
5) Targeting a late 2015 launch date.
6) No plans to build anything bigger. Considering Electron has yet to fly I'm not surprised at this answer.
-
Article on Small sat market and launcher.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2577/1
-
I admire the work on "Viscous Liquid Monopropellants"
to Quote
"VLM is a single part high density monopropellant. It currently has performance and density equal or better than current solid fuel propulsion systems but has all the controllability of a liquid system with an ability to throttle arbitrarily, shut down and restart"
maybe it's a development we will see years later catching on elsewhere...
http://www.rocketlabusa.com/category/rocket-lab-news/vlm/
-
Another news article.
Order book fulling up without them trying to sell launches.
First test flight end of 2015, commercial flights from mid 2016.
ELV only RLV not worth it due low cost LV.
http://www.satellitetoday.com/launch/2014/10/23/electron-to-launch-at-least-once-per-week-says-rocket-lab-ceo/
-
30 customers noted in the link
This could be a new beginning for rocketry for the "down under" crowd.
-
From financial point of view RLV may not be viable especially if they can mass produce them cheap enough. Environmental RLV makes sense, I can see some opposition them drop 50 boosters a year into the see. Also the local fishing fleet would object to vacating the flight path safe zone once a week.
If booster is reusable then vacating the down range part of flight path may not be necessary. There is still a minor risk of the occasionally booster failing and crashing in sea.
-
From financial point of view RLV may not be viable especially if they can mass produce them cheap enough. Environmental RLV makes sense, I can see some opposition them drop 50 boosters a year into the see. Also the local fishing fleet would object to vacating the flight path safe zone once a week.
If booster is reusable then vacating the down range part of flight path may not be necessary. There is still a minor risk of the occasionally booster failing and crashing in sea.
As I understand it, (US example only mind you) RLV or no they'd have to evacuate the possible "down-range" landing zone in any case. If for no other reason than you can't evacute quickly DURING an emergency so you'd clear it before hand.
Randy
-
As I understand it, (US example only mind you) RLV or no they'd have to evacuate the possible "down-range" landing zone in any case. If for no other reason than you can't evacute quickly DURING an emergency so you'd clear it before hand.
Randy
Not necessarily. It is all a risk calculation thing. If there is a calculated 90% chance of RTLS success it reduces the risk by one order of magnitude. The smaller stage might also reduce risk. That may well get the total calculated risk below the threshold where evacuation is necessary.
-
Interesting photo on the scale of the Rutherford engine from Rocket Lab press photo on Doug Messier's Parabolic web site. link (http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/07/30/rocket-lab-funding-sources/#more-53025) That is Peter Beck founder & CEO of Rocket Lab standing next to the Electron core, reminisce of Elon Musk next to his Falcon 1 photo.
Question. If the Electron core is 1 m diameter, can anyone estimate the nozzle diameter of the Rutherford engine? I think it about 18 cm from looking at the photo.
roughly 20cm I think
-
Rocketlab need more engineers and having a hard time recruiting them.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11388291
-
Rocketlab are looking at Cape Canaveral for launch sites, this site would be mainly for government missions.
The use of low cost cubesats in future by both NASA and DoD will only increase. DoD business especially is worth chasing, of cause they will have to get certification. They can thank SpaceX for making the certification process smoother.
http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2015/02/06/new-rocket-company-looks-cape-canaveral-launches/23009275/
-
Rocket Lab Ltd @rocketlabltd 21m21 minutes ago
Rutherford test fires reach a frequency of one per day in preparation for the first flight. Exciting times!
-
Presser:
The aerospace company Rocket Lab has announced today their completion of Series B financing, led by Bessemer Venture Partners with full participation from existing investors Khosla Ventures and K1W1 investment fund. Additionally, Lockheed Martin will be providing strategic investment support.
--
LOS ANGELES, March 2, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- Rocket Lab announced today that it has completed a Series B financing round, led by Bessemer Venture Partners (BVP) with full participation from existing investors Khosla Ventures and K1W1 investment fund. In addition, Lockheed Martin will make a strategic investment in Rocket Lab to support the exploration of future aerospace technologies.
The company will use the funding to complete the Electron launch system and plans to begin operations as a commercial launch provider as early as 2016.
David Cowan, a BVP partner and former Skybox Board member, has joined Rocket Lab's Board as part of BVP's funding. "On the South Pacific islands of New Zealand, a world class team of engineers is designing a rocket that will revolutionize aerospace," says Cowan.
"With unprecedented economy, reliability, fuel efficiency and frequency, Electron is the transformational launch option that small satellite constellations need to usher in a new era of space colonization."
Rocket Lab CEO Peter Beck says the company is delighted to be partnering with new investors BVP and Lockheed Martin. "Bessemer Venture Partners, a leading VC firm, actively invests in space startups and Lockheed Martin, an aerospace powerhouse with a deep history in space systems, has been instrumental in all major American space endeavors over the last century. We are thrilled to have these global space institutions as part of the Rocket Lab team."
"Lockheed Martin pursues technology investments that help us keep pace with innovation across the industry," said Lockheed Martin's Chief Scientist Ned Allen. "Rocket Lab's work could have application in a number of aerospace domains, and we look forward to working with them to complement our overall efforts in small lift capabilities and hypersonic flight technologies."
Rocket Lab expects to reveal further details about the Electron launch system in April 2015 at the Space Symposium in Colorado Springs.
About Electron
Rocket Lab is building an all carbon-composite launch vehicle, named Electron. Electron is a revolutionary launch system, designed to liberate the emerging small satellite market. Electron can rapidly deliver small satellites to commercial orbits at world-first frequency and will be the world's most affordable launch service for small satellites. The lead-time for businesses to launch a satellite will be reduced from years to weeks through vertical integration with Rocket Lab's private launch facility in Auckland, New Zealand. The first Electron launch is planned for December 2015.
About Rocket Lab
Peter Beck established Rocket Lab in 2008 as a center for advanced space programs. Rocket Lab's mission is to remove the barriers to commercial space by providing high-frequency, low-cost launches. The company was founded on the belief that small payloads require dedicated small launch vehicles and the flexibility not currently offered by traditional rocket systems. The Auckland startup has developed and launched more than 80 rockets and has worked with customers including Lockheed Martin, DARPA and Aerojet Rocketdyne. Rocket Lab employs a large team of industry experts, who are based at Rocket Lab's facility in Auckland and the USA. Learn more at www.rocketlabusa.com or on Twitter @rocketlabltd.
About Bessemer Venture Partners
Bessemer Venture Partners (BVP) invests in early-stage, hyper-growth startups, partnering closely with entrepreneurs to build durable businesses. BVP is a global firm with offices in Menlo Park, Cambridge, New York, Bangalore, Herzliya and Sao Paulo. With $4 billion under management, BVP invests anywhere from $100,000 to $75 million in innovative companies like Pinterest, Twitch, Box, LinkedIn, Shopify, Yelp, Skybox and Skype. More than 100 BVP companies have gone public and in the last three years alone, BVP has had 37exits (IPO and M&A) and made new investments in more than 70 companies. Learn more at www.bvp.com/space or on Twitter @BessemerVP.
About Lockheed Martin
Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin is a global security and aerospace company that employs about 112,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services.
--
The company will use the funding to complete the Electron launch system and plans to begin operations as a commercial launch provider as early as 2016. To view images of Electron Orbital Vehicle, see here:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/f6yk0gzulqk5k72/AABgdM-3m0u007mzVDYn5nfUa?dl=0
-
Will be interesting to see who among Electron, Firefly, VG, etc. actually gets off the ground in the next two years and what their prices will end up being. Hard to believe the market will support all 3 (although they do have different payload masses that could create niches).
-
Rocketlab are hoping to fly end of 2015. Lack of manpower is their biggest problem, while finance and technology are well in hand. This latest news plus LM involvement may help the recruitment drive, plus having access to LM knowledge base is a big plus.
Both Firefly and Rocket lab have stated there is no shortage of customers.
-
Both Firefly and Rocket lab have stated there is no shortage of customers.
Which is strange, since SpaceX didn't find many customers for Falcon 1. Maybe five years have changed the satellite market.
-
This latest market research may explain some of the demand.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2015/03/02/euroconsult-sees-large-market-smallsats/
-
I do wonder if LM plan use RL for testing RLV technology. The Electron would be a great test bed ,with F9 configuration they can do vertical landing or add wings for horizontal landing.
-
Interview with Peter Beck from today. Not much info in it.
http://www.3news.co.nz/business/full-interview-rocket-labs-peter-beck-talks-satellite-aspirations-2015030306
-
This presser is just drowning in Silicon Valley VC-speech.
Flagship sentences like "Electron is a revolutionary launch system, designed to liberate the emerging small satellite market", coupled with evasive phrasing like "world's most affordable launch service for small satellites" (So it is, what, cheaper then Pegasus?) and the never ending search for exciting things that you can say you do well but are not the main goal "With unprecedented economy, reliability, fuel efficiency and frequency,"...
So it has unprecedented:
- fuel efficient (however that is defined)
- high frequency (launch rate?), but "one-each" launches
- reliability (is it calculated per single-satellite-launch? and how do they know, anyway?)
- economy (however that is defined)
- and something about short lead time.
But it clearly does not have, even on paper, a lower price per kg. Or the ability to launch more satellites. Or a path towards reusability. Or they would have said so.
So it is optimized for small satellites that are not part of large constellations and need to be launched really quickly.
Not very convincing.
-
Sounds like the same pitch that Firefly is giving.
-
RocketLab is advertising $5M for a launch (110kg payload capacity). That would be lowest on the market by a fairly large margin.
-
RocketLab is advertising $5M for a launch (110kg payload capacity). That would be lowest on the market by a fairly large margin.
I agree. It's not likely that either of these will have the lowest price per kilogram of the industry. But it allows smallsat institutions the ability to select their own designated orbit, rather than piggybacking on other launches.
-
Comparing these small sat LVs to LVs like F9 and Atlas 5 is like comparing apples to oranges.
Ride share is like catching a bus which doesn't run to a set schedule, seat price maybe cheap but you need to book your seat months/years in advance to find that the bus has been cancelled or is not running to schedule ie delayed by months. Even when cubesat gets dropped off it will most likely be 100s m/s of DV from its final destination, suddenly a 3U cubesat becomes 4U ie 1U for propulsion and fuel. Each launch will most likely result in different DV, we now have a choice build each cubesat differently depending on DV required or build them all the same and accept that some are carrying a lot more DV (kgs) than will ever be used.
The small LV are more like cabs.
Can be booked weeks/months in advance, will launch when you are ready. The cubesats will be delivered within m/s of destination so may not need any DV, if needed small micro thrusters should do the job. They can all be built to same spec and not needing significant DV is a large R&D and build cost saving.
It is hard to run a business when your cubesats don't earn any revenue sitting on the ground waiting for a ride share. With dedicated LVs they can be flying and bringing in revenue within weeks of being built. This launch assurance is worth considerably more than any savings offered by a ride share.
-
Nobody disputes that a smaller launcher - in theory - would be the best option for most smallsat customers.
The issue is that the cost savings for these smaller launchers don't seem to materialize. And that the market seems to be much smaller than hoped for, further driving up the costs.
-
RocketLab is advertising $5M for a launch (110kg payload capacity). That would be lowest on the market by a fairly large margin.
I agree. It's not likely that either of these will have the lowest price per kilogram of the industry. But it allows smallsat institutions the ability to select their own designated orbit, rather than piggybacking on other launches.
That depends where you're launching from. Does anyone know for certain whether that will be from NZ or from somewhere in the US?
If 'lowest price per kilogram' means shipping your sat to NZ, that might not work out lowest in the end once logistics is factored in and AFAIK there is no market in this region (not a large one anyway) for smallsat launch.
-
RL has no US infrastructure, so that will take time and money, etc, and higher operating costs. However, the US is the largest small sat player, and has good space infrastructure, VC, talent; so if RL wants to steal small sats away from others, it has to be in the US. (No offense to NZ space.... )
SpaceX rarely mentions small sats/secondaries, except they make no money on them and do it as a favor to the space community. It would be nice to know what they charge, if anything.
-
The original test launch (for a smaller rocket) was done in 2009 from Mercury Island, which is part of a group of Islands off the North East of the North Island of New Zealand. I'm not sure where future launches will be from.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_Islands
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11410558
http://www.rocketlabusa.com/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qi6Z6yFJ23U
-
The market seems to be much smaller than hoped for, further driving up the costs.
This would jar with both Firefly's statements and RocketLab's statements.
Do you believe that they're telling people what they would like to hear themselves? Certainly, they've been big on positive exposition lately. Firefly in particular has made reference to the future internet satcom constellations which may appear later; however, those constellations have much to gain by deploying themselves on a much more sizable LV.
At the same time, the smallsat market has been encountering significant incremental growth. I reckon at least one of these companies will make the cut.
Edit: SATCOM, not sitcom xD gawdarn' it ;D
-
RL has no US infrastructure, so that will take time and money, etc, and higher operating costs. However, the US is the largest small sat player, and has good space infrastructure, VC, talent; so if RL wants to steal small sats away from others, it has to be in the US. (No offense to NZ space.... )
SpaceX rarely mentions small sats/secondaries, except they make no money on them and do it as a favor to the space community. It would be nice to know what they charge, if anything.
Besides commercial launches from NZ (I think just south of Christchurch, just rumor) they are also planning to do US launches for DOD and NASA initially, this may include manufacturing in US. See Post 109.
Being so small they maybe able operate a mobile launcher, plus mobile fuel tankers so launch pad infrastructure may not be that expensive.
-
The market seems to be much smaller than hoped for, further driving up the costs.
This would jar with both Firefly's statements and Electron's statements.
Start-ups will always tell everyone their target market is going to be enormous. They're the least likely source to be unbiased about the size of their own market.
Do you believe that they're telling people what they would like to hear themselves? Certainly, they've been big on positive exposition lately. Firefly in particular has made reference to the future internet sitcom constellations which may appear later; however, those constellations have much to gain by deploying themselves on a much more sizable LV.
At the same time, the smallsat market has been encountering significant incremental growth. I reckon at least one of these companies will make the cut.
I think their only hope is to do what SpaceX did -- move up to a larger vehicle as soon as they get their small vehicle working. The small vehicle can be used to learn, build an organization, and prove they have the ability to get something to orbit, which will be very helpful for getting the larger investment they'll need for their larger launch vehicles.
The small payload market will never be more than a small niche because it's easy to launch a dispenser with a large number of small satellites on a large vehicle. The orbit might not be the very best for a particular purpose, but it will be so much cheaper than a $5 million dedicated launch that the dedicated launch will get few takers. And the more small satellites are launched, the more big launch vehicles to more orbits more often will happen. The small satellite market growing won't help the dedicated small payload business, it will hurt it by making shared rides more appealing.
-
Many satellite owners do not like secondary launch payloads that use hot thrusters. They worry that the fuel will explode. So there may be a market for launching small satellites that contain propellant that is flammable or under high pressure.
-
Many satellite owners do not like secondary launch payloads that use hot thrusters. They worry that the fuel will explode. So there may be a market for launching small satellites that contain propellant that is flammable or under high pressure.
Fair enough. But if the market for such hot thruster small sat launches is big enough, someone will launch a dedicated mission on a large launcher that carries a dispenser with lots of those hot thrusters small sats. The market for individual launches of them can only get so big.
-
The orbit might not be the very best for a particular purpose, but it will be so much cheaper than a $5 million dedicated launch that the dedicated launch will get few takers. And the more small satellites are launched, the more big launch vehicles to more orbits more often will happen. The small satellite market growing won't help the dedicated small payload business, it will hurt it by making shared rides more appealing.
An erudite, wonderfully worded point right there. I've readjusted my viewpoint accordingly.
Going with that perspective, it seems extremely concerning (more so for Firefly than RocketLab, since Firefly has made it fairly clear that they intend to stay small for a while), that they're effectively subscribing to a business plan where the potential for future growth actually drops year on year.
However, we're not yet at the SpaceX-esque flight rate nirvana where big, cheap, ridiculous kg/$ ratio LV's have completely fulfilled every possible demand of the smallsat industry. Not just yet. As to when we will, it's probably a fair bet it won't be decades away, or even necessarily after 2020.
Can they be viable in the interim? I can imagine so. They're just going to have to be very, very smart with where their next generation of LVs take them.
Edit: Perhaps the SpaceX growth system; launch a few, then scale up to the mainstream, is truly the system to emulate.
-
SpaceX rarely mentions small sats/secondaries, except they make no money on them and do it as a favor to the space community. It would be nice to know what they charge, if anything.
True, but there is a key difference that SpaceX ride-alongs basically cannot control what orbit they end up in, which makes the system useless for launching constellations, which is exactly what small satellites are most useful for. PlanetLabs has been the most successful so far by launching off of ISS, but I'm sure they would love a way to reach a larger number of orbits (especially an array of Sun-Synchronous orbits, allowing all-day imagining of any particular place in the world).
-
"@pbdes: SpaceX Falcon to carry 90 sats on Spaceflight Inc's Sherpa dispenser late this year, likely a record for # sats on a single launch."
A dedicated ride share. I think this Tweet from today is related to this article.
http://www.satellitetoday.com/launch/2014/05/08/spaceflight-inc-s-first-sherpa-flight-almost-fully-booked-with-smallsats/
-
"@pbdes: SpaceX Falcon to carry 90 sats on Spaceflight Inc's Sherpa dispenser late this year, likely a record for # sats on a single launch."
A dedicated ride share. I think this Tweet from today is related to this article.
http://www.satellitetoday.com/launch/2014/05/08/spaceflight-inc-s-first-sherpa-flight-almost-fully-booked-with-smallsats/
I think that's the future of small satellite launch. It's like having a huge container ship full of individual containers. The more containers there are being shipped, the more likely there's a container ship going near where you want your container to end up. Small boats carrying a single container aren't going to be able to compete, even if they're cheaper on per-voyage basis because they're so much more expensive on a per-container basis.
-
The real value here is regular reliable launches. Let's hope they can deliver.
-
"@pbdes: SpaceX Falcon to carry 90 sats on Spaceflight Inc's Sherpa dispenser late this year, likely a record for # sats on a single launch."
A dedicated ride share. I think this Tweet from today is related to this article.
http://www.satellitetoday.com/launch/2014/05/08/spaceflight-inc-s-first-sherpa-flight-almost-fully-booked-with-smallsats/
I think that's the future of small satellite launch. It's like having a huge container ship full of individual containers. The more containers there are being shipped, the more likely there's a container ship going near where you want your container to end up. Small boats carrying a single container aren't going to be able to compete, even if they're cheaper on per-voyage basis because they're so much more expensive on a per-container basis.
Best analogy in a long time.
All the single-minisat launchers are just ignoring the fact that the whole point of minisats is that they operate in large groups that go (invariably) onto discrete orbital planes.
You can't build a proper business plan based on one-off mini-prototypes for an OOM of $1M.
-
If those big container ships had a habit of never leaving port on time you'd quickly discover a market exists for smaller boats that do.
... also, if you had to wait 3 years to get a slot on one of those big container ships.
-
If those big container ships had a habit of never leaving port on time you'd quickly discover a market exists for smaller boats that do.
... also, if you had to wait 3 years to get a slot on one of those big container ships.
Yes, that's true. But I'm not sure how good a business plan it is to bet that SpaceX can't learn to launch regularly.
-
Yes, that's true. But I'm not sure how good a business plan it is to bet that SpaceX can't learn to launch regularly.
I'm having trouble thinking of a safer bet right now.
-
Yes, that's true. But I'm not sure how good a business plan it is to bet that SpaceX can't learn to launch regularly.
I'm having trouble thinking of a safer bet right now.
After three launches in 60 days? ::) I think it is a MUCH safer bet that all the business plans of these small-sat launcher startups aren't worth the paper they are printed on.
-
After three launches in 60 days? ::) I think it is a MUCH safer bet that all the business plans of these small-sat launcher startups aren't worth the paper they are printed on.
None of them launched on time.. and it still takes three years to get on the manifest.
-
After three launches in 60 days? ::) I think it is a MUCH safer bet that all the business plans of these small-sat launcher startups aren't worth the paper they are printed on.
None of them launched on time.. and it still takes three years to get on the manifest.
But that wasn't what your "bet" was about. Nonetheless I look forward to seeing the launch frequency (& timeliness!) of these small sat players, if they ever fly.
-
Nonetheless I look forward to seeing the launch frequency (& timeliness!) of these small sat players, if they ever fly.
Me too. It makes sense that a smaller vehicle in mass production should be more responsive, but there's no guarantees.
-
If the 'dispenser' system on conventional size rockets works and becomes the norm then it really resolves the whole 'hitching a ride' problem for the small stat and leaves no advantage is 'booking time' and flexibility for the small rocket. Rather then directly approaching and negotiating with the launch provider to effectively bum a ride, they book with the dispenser provider which dose the interface with the launch provider AS a full fledged customer of the launch provider, that is going to get you a lot more clout and a lot lower chance of getting bumped in time or dumped into some undesirable orbit.
Now the small sat maker is arguably in a better position then the manufacturer of a whole launch vehicle using traditional satellite, because they can jump in at virtually the last minute if their is still room in the dispenser systems manifest and assuming the dispenser launches regularly enough they get to orbit is less lead-time on average. It's like the difference in lead time between booking a whole plane vs buying a single ticket at the airport.
P.S. I found it really nutting that they claim launching small sats and creating small sat constellations is what will lead to space-colonization. By definition these small launch vehicles are incapable of being used in manned space flight even to LEO (a human rated capsule for 1 person exceeds their launch capability), their is no way they can colonize anything with this tech even if they had thousands of them and they were fully reusable.
-
P.S. I found it really nutting that they claim launching small sats and creating small sat constellations is what will lead to space-colonization. By definition these small launch vehicles are incapable of being used in manned space flight even to LEO (a human rated capsule for 1 person exceeds their launch capability), their is no way they can colonize anything with this tech even if they had thousands of them and they were fully reusable.
Maybe they meant colonization by ants. :-)
-
P.S. I found it really nutting that they claim launching small sats and creating small sat constellations is what will lead to space-colonization. By definition these small launch vehicles are incapable of being used in manned space flight even to LEO (a human rated capsule for 1 person exceeds their launch capability), their is no way they can colonize anything with this tech even if they had thousands of them and they were fully reusable.
It takes thousands of companies to make an industry. Currently there's very few actually operating anything in space. Their argument is that they can help increase that number. Whether they can actually do that or not is the question.
It's important to remember that some of us still think space will be colonized by humanity, not just Elon Musk.
-
If these small LVs can achieve the high flight rates that Firefly and Rocketlab are talking about then expect them to keep innovating and drive launches prices down while advancing LV technology.
-
It's worth noting that Firefly's payload market is an order of magnitude above RocketLab's 110kg.
RocketLab is to Firefly as Firefly is to SpaceX's F9R.
I'm not sure $5m is cheap enough for such a tiny payload.
-
Paper rockets always launch on time, and are 100% reliable.
3 years manifest has nothing to do with the size of the rocket. Why would a smaller rocket company that's wildly successful have a shorter waiting list?
Or if there's no waiting list - how well does that bode to the business plan?
---
Anyway, 1 ton and $5M puts FF in the same category as Launcher One. For context, consider Weiler's 700 satellite constellation. Should they be launched, one by one, using Launcher One? What's the total cost there? And will they launch one per day for two years?
-
The cost of Firefly's vehicles is supposed to be $8-9 million, but that's for a ~1 ton payload.
-
3 years manifest has nothing to do with the size of the rocket.
Yeah, it does. Not only can you find more payloads (and not have to wait until multiple smaller payloads come together) you can also turn around the pad faster for a smaller vehicle. You need less operations staff, less complicated logistics to get the rocket to the pad, off-the-shelf logistics to get the payload to the rocket, etc, etc. The advantage of scale works both ways, they're just different advantages :)
-
The cost of Firefly's vehicles is supposed to be $8-9 million, but that's for a ~1 ton payload.
Actually Alpha is 400kg to LEO, Electron is 110kg to SS.
-
3 years manifest has nothing to do with the size of the rocket.
Yeah, it does. Not only can you find more payloads (and not have to wait until multiple smaller payloads come together) you can also turn around the pad faster for a smaller vehicle. You need less operations staff, less complicated logistics to get the rocket to the pad, off-the-shelf logistics to get the payload to the rocket, etc, etc. The advantage of scale works both ways, they're just different advantages :)
I don't agree.
"Waiting for payloads to come together" is only relevant if each customer only wants to launch one. That's the fallacy.
Mini satellites work in constellations. Every customer wants to launch a large quantity of them. Basing your plan on "one-each" means that you will only have as many mini-launches as there are customers (for prototyping, perhaps) and then of course you'll be able to provide a rocket right away, since your manifest will be rock empty....
The idea of serving a market that wants unplanned launches right away - I don't see that market yet. It takes time to develop hardware, and so customers can sign up a couple of years in advance.
We'll see. I think the mini-launchers companies are in bubble mode. It doesn't add up financially, it just sounds good in relation to mini-sats.
-
That's the fallacy.
There's more of them than constellations.
Mini satellites work in constellations. Every customer wants to launch a large quantity of them.
No. Not at all.
-
Here is another article on small LVs. They say Firefly Alpha sun synchronous payload is 210kg, if is so then the per kg to orbit is similar to Electron. ie $5m for 110kg compared to $8m for 210kg.
http://seradata.com/SSI/2014/06/uk-launch-symposium-patriotic-rocket-scientists-want-to-put-britain-back-into-launch-business-but-know-that-affordability-is-the-key/
-
Here is another article on small LVs. They say Firefly Alpha sun synchronous payload is 210kg, if is so then the per kg to orbit is similar to Electron. ie $5m for 110kg compared to $8m for 210kg.
http://seradata.com/SSI/2014/06/uk-launch-symposium-patriotic-rocket-scientists-want-to-put-britain-back-into-launch-business-but-know-that-affordability-is-the-key/
Coincidentally, $5-8 million is the range Shotwell mentioned at a satellite industry conference as the long-term price for a Falcon 9 class launch.
-
Here is another article on small LVs. They say Firefly Alpha sun synchronous payload is 210kg, if is so then the per kg to orbit is similar to Electron. ie $5m for 110kg compared to $8m for 210kg.
http://seradata.com/SSI/2014/06/uk-launch-symposium-patriotic-rocket-scientists-want-to-put-britain-back-into-launch-business-but-know-that-affordability-is-the-key/
Coincidentally, $5-8 million is the range Shotwell mentioned at a satellite industry conference as the long-term price for a Falcon 9 class launch.
$5-8 million for 13 150 kg to LEO :D
-
$5-8 million for 13 150 kg to LEO :D
With an aspiration of 12 launches per year.. woooo.. they're totally going to own the entire market for launches with that!
-
Good luck booking a F9R launch in need few years for $8m.
-
P.S. I found it really nutting that they claim launching small sats and creating small sat constellations is what will lead to space-colonization. By definition these small launch vehicles are incapable of being used in manned space flight even to LEO (a human rated capsule for 1 person exceeds their launch capability), their is no way they can colonize anything with this tech even if they had thousands of them and they were fully reusable.
Maybe they meant colonization by ants. :-)
This leads to having to point this out:
"The Program"
(Background)http://www.klydemorris.com/theprogram.cfm
(Strip itself)http://www.klydemorris.com/strips.cfm?Strip_ID=286
Ants in space :)
Randy
-
$5-8 million for 13 150 kg to LEO :D
With an aspiration of 12 launches per year.. woooo.. they're totally going to own the entire market for launches with that!
Yeah, I'm sure you believe 100% that SpaceX's aspirations stop at 12 launches a year. :-)
-
It takes thousands of companies to make an industry. Currently there's very few actually operating anything in space. Their argument is that they can help increase that number. Whether they can actually do that or not is the question.
It's important to remember that some of us still think space will be colonized by humanity, not just Elon Musk.
Let's leave the anti-personality cultism and the colonisation stuff out of this. There's tonnes of threads for that already. RocketLab is about small sats, let's stick to that.
You make a lot of good points QuantumG, and I agree with you that not every organisation that coughs up enough quid for a smallsat or two has necessarily enough resources (or the motivation - even a cubesat can perform an incredible amount of science for its mass) to send up a constellation of them, especially when we're talking about science oriented earthsats instead of a telecom project. Firefly recently compared their business model to "a train", which payloads then cash into, and I can see how the metaphor works out for either ff or RocketLab; both are developing small, relatively simple rockets which (should) be easy to tease the bugs out of, and thus fly a frequent, predictable service. Kinda' like a train (in theory. The trains around here suffer more delays than a certain past Orbcomm launch).
It all boils down to them getting those payloads. Along with not blowing up any more times than is necessary, or whatever, but that's a given for any LV, in any stripes, sizes, flags or colours.
Edit: Grammar.
-
An update from THRO web broadcast episode 8.08 at the 30:30 mark test flights anticipated by end of 2015!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkzbT-7MHG0
-
It all boils down to them getting those payloads. Along with not blowing up any more times than is necessary, or whatever, but that's a given for any LV, in any stripes, sizes, flags or colours.
{emphasis mine}
A fair point.. And presumably reliability is going to be key to their success, because, to use the "train analogy", if an entire train derails you've just trashed a whole lot more cargo (and a whole lot more people's dreams) than you would if you lost just the engine and a single carriage.
And a question around that: It's not evident to me from the pics posted above exactly how the 'Electron' is steered. Does anyone know??
-
It all boils down to them getting those payloads. Along with not blowing up any more times than is necessary, or whatever, but that's a given for any LV, in any stripes, sizes, flags or colours.
{emphasis mine}
A fair point.. And presumably reliability is going to be key to their success, because, to use the "train analogy", if an entire train derails you've just trashed a whole lot more cargo (and a whole lot more people's dreams) than you would if you lost just the engine and a single carriage.
That makes no difference. Whether it's one hundred trains at one customer each or one train with a hundred customers, if the locomotive causes a crash 5% of the time, each customer has a 5% chance of being in a crash. Over time, 5% of your customers will end up being in crashes. Whether it's one out of 20 launches crashing 100 customers or 100 out of 2000 launches crashing 100 customers, it's exactly the same result.
-
It all boils down to them getting those payloads. Along with not blowing up any more times than is necessary, or whatever, but that's a given for any LV, in any stripes, sizes, flags or colours.
{emphasis mine}
A fair point.. And presumably reliability is going to be key to their success, because, to use the "train analogy", if an entire train derails you've just trashed a whole lot more cargo (and a whole lot more people's dreams) than you would if you lost just the engine and a single carriage.
That makes no difference. Whether it's one hundred trains at one customer each or one train with a hundred customers, if the locomotive causes a crash 5% of the time, each customer has a 5% chance of being in a crash. Over time, 5% of your customers will end up being in crashes. Whether it's one out of 20 launches crashing 100 customers or 100 out of 2000 launches crashing 100 customers, it's exactly the same result.
I'd like to think so, but I'm not so sure.. IIRC, starting out, SpaceX had three strike-outs in a row with Falcon 1. After watching Elon Musk's '60 Minutes' interview following the last one, it seems to me it was only determination to not ever give up that saw SpaceX go on to be where it is today. One more might have been the end of them.
Therefore, ISTM that it's not only the quantity but exactly where those crashes occur in the vehicle development cycle (and how good the company is at PR and retaining funding afterwards) that decides the success (or failure) of the entire venture.
-
It all boils down to them getting those payloads. Along with not blowing up any more times than is necessary, or whatever, but that's a given for any LV, in any stripes, sizes, flags or colours.
{emphasis mine}
A fair point.. And presumably reliability is going to be key to their success, because, to use the "train analogy", if an entire train derails you've just trashed a whole lot more cargo (and a whole lot more people's dreams) than you would if you lost just the engine and a single carriage.
That makes no difference. Whether it's one hundred trains at one customer each or one train with a hundred customers, if the locomotive causes a crash 5% of the time, each customer has a 5% chance of being in a crash. Over time, 5% of your customers will end up being in crashes. Whether it's one out of 20 launches crashing 100 customers or 100 out of 2000 launches crashing 100 customers, it's exactly the same result.
I'd like to think so, but I'm not so sure.. IIRC, starting out, SpaceX had three strike-outs in a row with Falcon 1. After watching Elon Musk's '60 Minutes' interview following the last one, it seems to me it was only determination to not ever give up that saw SpaceX go on to be where it is today. One more might have been the end of them.
Therefore, ISTM that it's not only the quantity but exactly where those crashes occur in the vehicle development cycle (and how good the company is at PR and retaining funding afterwards) that decides the success (or failure) of the entire venture.
Sure, that's a fair point. I was addressing the stead-state case. Finding the initial design flaws is another issue.
But if we're talking about whether a customer would rather fly with a dedicated small launcher or as one of many on a Falcon 9 flight -- well, Falcon 9 has already gone through the learning curve.
-
Electron to use battery powered electric fuel pump. Cool!.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2015/04/14/rocket-lab-unveils-battery-powered-motor/#more-55084
-
Electron to use battery powered electric fuel pump. Cool!.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2015/04/14/rocket-lab-unveils-battery-powered-motor/#more-55084
I wonder, if Ventions' experimental SALVO rocket (built for DARPA) will fly first, which also features electric pumped engines. But they are very secretive about it
http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/salvo.htm
-
'Unlike traditional propulsion cycles based on complex and expensive gas generators, the 4,600 lbf Rutherford adopts an entirely new electric propulsion cycle, making use of high-performance brushless DC electric motors and lithium-polymer batteries to drive its turbopumps.'
wonder what mass fraction this affords compared to pressure and pump fed systems.
-
High performance LiPos can do up to 10-20kW/kg. Large gas generators are better but likely don't scale down very well.
-
Another article covering same stuff.
http://spacenews.com/rocket-lab-unveils-battery-powered-3d-printed-rocket-engine/
The container idea for payloads is interesting. Would allow change of payload or LV on the day.
-
Electron to use battery powered electric fuel pump. Cool!.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2015/04/14/rocket-lab-unveils-battery-powered-motor/#more-55084
I wonder, if Ventions' experimental SALVO rocket (built for DARPA) will fly first, which also features electric pumped engines. But they are very secretive about it
http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/salvo.htm
They've already test flown the engine. I don't think Rocket Lab have flown the Rutherford, have they?
-
More informative article from Forbes.
110kg to 500km SSO
400kg to LEO
50hp from electric motor size of soda can. (Just what I need for the bike.)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2015/04/14/rocket-lab-unveils-a-3d-printed-battery-powered-rocket-engine/
-
Some linkage
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34421.msg1359569#msg1359569
-
'Unlike traditional propulsion cycles based on complex and expensive gas generators, the 4,600 lbf Rutherford adopts an entirely new electric propulsion cycle, making use of high-performance brushless DC electric motors and lithium-polymer batteries to drive its turbopumps.'
Interesting technology but getting rid of the turbine makes "electric turbopump" an oxymoron.
Wondering what specs high discharge rate batteries have today. First stage requires 20C-30C batteries which won't pack highest specific energies.
-
Electron to use battery powered electric fuel pump. Cool!.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2015/04/14/rocket-lab-unveils-battery-powered-motor/#more-55084
I wonder, if Ventions' experimental SALVO rocket (built for DARPA) will fly first, which also features electric pumped engines. But they are very secretive about it
http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/salvo.htm
They've already test flown the engine. I don't think Rocket Lab have flown the Rutherford, have they?
No, I don't think they have. AFAIK, they're still working out where to fly from..
-
More informative article from Forbes.
110kg to 500km SSO
400kg to LEO
50hp from electric motor size of soda can. (Just what I need for the bike.)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2015/04/14/rocket-lab-unveils-a-3d-printed-battery-powered-rocket-engine/
http://www.rocketlabusa.com/about-us/propulsion/rutherford/
4600 lbf thrust, 327s ISP :o
I assume this is the first stage version because 4600*9 is similar to the total thrust claimed for the vehicle, which means even though there's a mass penalty for the batteries, not having to divert any of the propellant flow means it gets expander/staged combustion-like ISP. This beats Merlin 1D by 16 seconds, so the vac version may get 350+ ISP. :o
Thoughts:
-battery contributes to dry mass but I bet it's better than doing the same job with COPV helium in a pressure fed engine, which also has dry mass penalty
-dry mass penalty compared to expander, but comparable ISP, simpler and cheaper to develop and build, and can work with prop combinations like kerolox that don't work with expander
This seems workable for a smallish first stage but it occurs to me this would probably work well for a high energy kick stage on a larger launcher. It could use non-toxic storables like N2O+Propane and outperform a solid kick stage, or it could use cryo propellants like kerolox/methalox and probably get into 350+/360+ territory.
-
Interesting technology but getting rid of the turbine makes "electric turbopump" an oxymoron.
Still applicable as the pump is likely a centrifugal turbopump even if it's driven by electricity.
-
Interesting technology but getting rid of the turbine makes "electric turbopump" an oxymoron.
Still applicable as the pump is likely a centrifugal turbopump even if it's driven by electricity.
The definition of tumbopump is that it has a turbine powering it.
-
More informative article from Forbes.
110kg to 500km SSO
400kg to LEO
50hp from electric motor size of soda can. (Just what I need for the bike.)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2015/04/14/rocket-lab-unveils-a-3d-printed-battery-powered-rocket-engine/
I figured the electric motor would have been similar in size to what you'd find in a small EV.
I guess since they have a cryogenic fluid LOX available to use as a coolant and the motor only needs to work for a few minutes they can make it much smaller.
-
Interesting technology but getting rid of the turbine makes "electric turbopump" an oxymoron.
Still applicable as the pump is likely a centrifugal turbopump even if it's driven by electricity.
The definition of tumbopump is that it has a turbine powering it.
And for a turbopump too ;) (j/k)
But seriously, after just discovering this thread, I want to understand - is the central proposition of this rocket that it uses an electric motor-driven "turbopump" as a simpler substitute for a regular turbopump? And of course since it's battery-powered, then it's less efficient and can't be scaled up to higher thrust. But does it have other advantages in restartability and reliability? I just wanted to understand the pro's and cons better.
Even if it's kind of weak here on Earth, would it be better suited for the Moon? Could it be used in a lunar lander perhaps, to shuttle between the surface and lunar orbit?
-
I think a turbopump at that scale would have similar thrust/weight. At least so far, anyway, Firefly might prove otherwise. Even then, RocketLab can expect the electric pump to be more reliable - everything else being equal - and it's certainly an easier way to start than building turbo machinery. As battery technology improves they could scale up.
-
Since restartability and reliability are particularly nice things to have for upper stage or space-based engines, then could this "electric-turbopump" technology find itself a nice niche there?
Would this kind of rocket engine be useful for a space tug, perhaps?
(Gee, it also sounds like a Poor Man's ICBM) :-X
-
Since restartability and reliability are particularly nice things to have for upper stage or space-based engines, then could this "electric-turbopump" technology find itself a nice niche there?
Would this kind of rocket engine be useful for a space tug, perhaps?
(Gee, it also sounds like a Poor Man's ICBM) :-X
One potential use I can think of is a lighter weight OMS system for orbital vehicles that already have an electrical system capable of charging the high amp battery bank needed for surge power to operate the pumps.
Ie poor man's OME for RLVs.
-
Well, if this thing can lift 100kg to LEO, then it should be able to lift 6 times that on the Moon. And if it's reliable, restartable, and can be 3D-printed easily, then it sounds like it would be good to support lunar transportation.
A space tug is a reusable vehicle, and likewise so is a lunar shuttle traveling between surface and orbit.
-
Well, if this thing can lift 100kg to LEO, then it should be able to lift 6 times that on the Moon. And if it's reliable, restartable, and can be 3D-printed easily, then it sounds like it would be good to support lunar transportation.
A space tug is a reusable vehicle, and likewise so is a lunar shuttle traveling between surface and orbit.
They use ten of them to put a payload in LEO nine in the first stage and one in the second.
A small lunar lander the size of the Apollo LEM would only need two or three of the engines.
-
Maybe if composites or alloys could be developed that could function both as structure and as electrical energy storage, then you could make a big rocket stage that could also store lots of electrical energy too. For instance, graphene has very high molecular tensile strength suitable for composites, and yet graphene has also been used to create high-performance capacitors.
http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/graphene-solar-could-be-a-game-changer_100018591/#axzz3Xua8PlE5
Of course, you'd probably have to make sure to always launch in clear weather.
-
Call it a "super" pump, in analogy to the distinction between turbocharger and supercharger in an automobile. :)
Actually, that analogy works quite well and carries on to the thermodynamics as well (although a turbocharger kind of works the opposite from a full flow staged combustion turbopump... the turbocharger is powered by the exhaust fed from combustion "chamber" while turbopump often feeds into the combustion chamber). They operate on the same basic principles, they're both turn-y vane-y things.
I'm calling this kind of rocket pump a superpump. Because I can.
-
But seriously, after just discovering this thread, I want to understand - is the central proposition of this rocket that it uses an electric motor-driven "turbopump" as a simpler substitute for a regular turbopump?
Sounds like it.
In an earlier interview, Beck said they elected to use a battery because it offered the best opportunity to reduce costs. “Unless you solve the turbopump problem, it’s really difficult to build a cost-effective system,” he said.
The battery-powered pump, he said, can be easily changed with software, making it far easier to modify. “It takes a really complex thermodynamic problem and turns it into software that’s infinitely tweakable,” he said
link: http://spacenews.com/rocket-lab-unveils-battery-powered-3d-printed-rocket-engine/
But does it have other advantages in restartability and reliability? I just wanted to understand the pro's and cons better.
Should do. A gas generator needs TEA/TEB or something like that to start, which is limited, but if the pumps are battery powered there's no need for anything like that. Electric ignition seems straightforward. So, yeah, extra restarts seems likely.
Even if it's kind of weak here on Earth, would it be better suited for the Moon? Could it be used in a lunar lander perhaps, to shuttle between the surface and lunar orbit?
I've had that thought. If it saves dry mass over pressure fed and gets high end hydrocarbon ISP that's an important improvement over Apollo.
Lunar descent/ascent was all pressure fed hypergols at 311s ISP, it looks like first stage Rutherford engines get 327s ISP in vac, which is extremely good for hydrocarbon, basically staged combustion territory. A larger nozzle should be able to improve that 20+ seconds. With that kind of performance it's not insane to contemplate a fully reusable lander that can do the round trip with one stage.
Combined Apollo descent stage and ascent stage delta-v is a touch less than 5 km/s, which isn't out of the question if you can credibly aspire to 350s.
-
RP1 is not an ideal fuel lunar landers but the technology could just as easily applied to small methane or LH engines.
The critical thing is max single burn time for a an application, every minute of energy storage adds mass to batteries.
A lunar landers mission may need to be broken up to sections to allow batteries to recharge.
1) EML1 to LLO
2) Recharge batteries (hours/days?)
3) LLO lunar surface.
4) Recharge
5) Surface - LLO.
6) Recharge
7) LLO- EML1.
-
Well, if it was an unmanned robot lander/shuttle, then maybe stopping in the middle to recharge like that is perfectly acceptable.
-
More informative article from Forbes.
110kg to 500km SSO
400kg to LEO
50hp from electric motor size of soda can. (Just what I need for the bike.)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2015/04/14/rocket-lab-unveils-a-3d-printed-battery-powered-rocket-engine/
http://www.rocketlabusa.com/about-us/propulsion/rutherford/
4600 lbf thrust, 327s ISP :o
I assume this is the first stage version because 4600*9 is similar to the total thrust claimed for the vehicle, which means even though there's a mass penalty for the batteries, not having to divert any of the propellant flow means it gets expander/staged combustion-like ISP. This beats Merlin 1D by 16 seconds, so the vac version may get 350+ ISP. :o
Thoughts:
-battery contributes to dry mass but I bet it's better than doing the same job with COPV helium in a pressure fed engine, which also has dry mass penalty
-dry mass penalty compared to expander, but comparable ISP, simpler and cheaper to develop and build, and can work with prop combinations like kerolox that don't work with expander
This seems workable for a smallish first stage but it occurs to me this would probably work well for a high energy kick stage on a larger launcher. It could use non-toxic storables like N2O+Propane and outperform a solid kick stage, or it could use cryo propellants like kerolox/methalox and probably get into 350+/360+ territory.
It really doesn't make sense to compare Isp of a battery-pumped engine with that of a turbopumped engine. The energy source for the turbopump goes into the exhaust, tending to decrease the Isp. That makes it look bad compared to the battery-pumped engine if you just look at Isp. But really the turbopumped version is much better because the power source for the electric pump has to be carried all the way. It's kind of like saying we're going to capture the exhaust of a turbopump and keep it onboard -- the Isp number of the engine goes up, but performance goes down.
This also has to be factored in when comparing power density -- even if the battery can hold as much energy per kg as the propellant, the battery gives worse performance because you have to haul the whole battery mass along on the whole trip.
-
even if the battery can hold as much energy per kg as the propellant, the battery gives worse performance because you have to haul the whole battery mass along on the whole trip.
That's irrelevant. It's the thrust/weight at lift-off that matters, not the thrust/weight at burnout - assuming any sensible trajectory. Creating a small turbopump with similar thrust/weight is a much harder proposition.
-
I found this paper that compares electric, turbopump and pressure fed engines. Slow read but some very interesting conclusions.
http://www.dima.uniroma1.it:8080/STAFF2/jpp12r3.pdf
1) Electric and turbopump powered LVs far superior to Pressure feed LVs.
2) Not much in it between electric and turbopump, with Turbopump just edging out electric in study.
3) Most surprising of all is that turbopump 1st stage is slightly better than electric, but electric has a superior 2nd stage performance even though batteries need to drive pump for longer.
4) Better engine control with electric as pump speed can be varied under electronic control. No surprise there.
As expected electric will gain from improvements in battery, electronic and motor technologies. This is by far one of the more important advantages, Rocketlab just need to sit back and wait for these improvements. Fitting lighter batteries every year would not cost a lot in R&D plus would be extremely low risk.
-
Call it a "super" pump, in analogy to the distinction between turbocharger and supercharger in an automobile. :)
Excellent name.
It looks to me like a good replacement for pressure fed engines.
Controllable, reliable, simple. Under some circumstances, even rechargeable.
Not scalable though, since the energy density is poor, and especially since in rockets, the thermal energy byproducts are actually used to good benefit (unlike in internal combustion engines)
-
RP1 is not an ideal fuel lunar landers but the technology could just as easily applied to small methane or LH engines.
That may not work as well. Pump power goes linearly with volumetric flow rate, so hydrogen would increase battery mass significantly. So would methane, though less so. There's other choices like subcooled propane though.
Also with hydrogen it won't last as long. LOX and LOX-like temperatures are much more manageable.
-
I found this paper that compares electric, turbopump and pressure fed engines. Slow read but some very interesting conclusions.
http://www.dima.uniroma1.it:8080/STAFF2/jpp12r3.pdf
1) Electric and turbopump powered LVs far superior to Pressure feed LVs.
2) Not much in it between electric and turbopump, with Turbopump just edging out electric in study.
3) Most surprising of all is that turbopump 1st stage is slightly better than electric, but electric has a superior 2nd stage performance even though batteries need to drive pump for longer.
4) Better engine control with electric as pump speed can be varied under electronic control. No surprise there.
As expected electric will gain from improvements in battery, electronic and motor technologies. This is by far one of the more important advantages, Rocketlab just need to sit back and wait for these improvements. Fitting lighter batteries every year would not cost a lot in R&D plus would be extremely low risk.
That is a really great article. A few comments:
I think the 1st stage vs 2nd stage difference is largely due to the fact that he switches to higher energy density batteries for longer burn times. If somebody developed a better battery (i.e. better combination of high power density and energy density), the 1st stage battery-electric pump lines might move down below the turbopump ones.
He may have artificially hobbled the turbopump. He's assuming a relatively unsophisticated turbopump that uses decomposition of MMH for it's gas source and further requires a cooling water supply that is injected to keep the turbine inlet temperatures in check. A gas generator running on LOX/RP-1 might do better, as might one that has higher temperature metallurgy.
The point for rocket hobbyists is: you can build a pump fed rocket that is within spitting distance of a turbopump system. This is clearly light years ahead of a pressure fed system.
-
4) Better engine control with electric as pump speed can be varied under electronic control. No surprise there.
This stands out to me as opening up some interesting avenues, specifically crossfeed of multiple core rockets. Whether via standalone pumps or throttling and split lines I would expect the complexity and development cost of such a system would be greatly reduced when pump flow isn't tied in directly to the engine.
-
I found this paper that compares electric, turbopump and pressure fed engines. Slow read but some very interesting conclusions.
http://www.dima.uniroma1.it:8080/STAFF2/jpp12r3.pdf
1) Electric and turbopump powered LVs far superior to Pressure feed LVs.
2) Not much in it between electric and turbopump, with Turbopump just edging out electric in study.
3) Most surprising of all is that turbopump 1st stage is slightly better than electric, but electric has a superior 2nd stage performance even though batteries need to drive pump for longer.
4) Better engine control with electric as pump speed can be varied under electronic control. No surprise there.
As expected electric will gain from improvements in battery, electronic and motor technologies. This is by far one of the more important advantages, Rocketlab just need to sit back and wait for these improvements. Fitting lighter batteries every year would not cost a lot in R&D plus would be extremely low risk.
Note that this is a comparison with gas generator turbopump engines, which lose several percentage points of efficiency by tossing the turbopump exhaust overboard. Staged combustion turbopump engines would likely outperform electric pump engines.
- Ed Kyle
-
I found this paper that compares electric, turbopump and pressure fed engines. Slow read but some very interesting conclusions.
http://www.dima.uniroma1.it:8080/STAFF2/jpp12r3.pdf
1) Electric and turbopump powered LVs far superior to Pressure feed LVs.
2) Not much in it between electric and turbopump, with Turbopump just edging out electric in study.
3) Most surprising of all is that turbopump 1st stage is slightly better than electric, but electric has a superior 2nd stage performance even though batteries need to drive pump for longer.
4) Better engine control with electric as pump speed can be varied under electronic control. No surprise there.
As expected electric will gain from improvements in battery, electronic and motor technologies. This is by far one of the more important advantages, Rocketlab just need to sit back and wait for these improvements. Fitting lighter batteries every year would not cost a lot in R&D plus would be extremely low risk.
Note that this is a comparison with gas generator turbopump engines, which loose several percentage points of efficiency by tossing the turbopump exhaust overboard. Staged combustion turbopump engines would likely outperform electric pump engines.
- Ed Kyle
Compare the development cost of a staged combustion system vs just developing a pump an connecting it to a motor, battery pack, and electronics that you can nearly buy off the shelf. Yes, it gives up some performance. But not nearly so much as going pressure fed. It potentially turns this into another option for the cost and risk tradeoffs. What if it's cheaper to just increase the size of your vehicle by 20% instead of developing and building a staged combustion engine? Tanks and propellant are cheap.
The other thing that would be really interesting for this concept would be some kind of flow battery where the spent electrolytes could be dumped overboard.
I'm looking forward to seeing what happens when RocketLab actually flies this, i.e. will it work, and can they make the economics work.
-
It really doesn't make sense to compare Isp of a battery-pumped engine with that of a turbopumped engine. The energy source for the turbopump goes into the exhaust, tending to decrease the Isp. That makes it look bad compared to the battery-pumped engine if you just look at Isp.
I agree as far as it goes, but even though the analysis needs to take that into account, it's not like we've used that as a reason to never talk about ISP for pressure fed even though it looks like that has a larger dry mass penalty. There's lots of dimensions to optimizing a rocket. Pressure fed and even solid upper stages are in use in spite of being even worse than electric.
What's interesting is that it may not be that much worse than turbopumps, at much lower cost, and significantly better than other extant technologies. That means it can credibly offer improvement in at least some uses.
-
Note that this is a comparison with gas generator turbopump engines, which loose several percentage points of efficiency by tossing the turbopump exhaust overboard. Staged combustion turbopump engines would likely outperform electric pump engines.
True of expander as well. But, the costs associated with this are much higher. Faced with developing an engine like that or even just buying RL-10, Orbital went with a solid stage. Electric seems much more economical than any turbopump, especially at small size; Rutherford is pretty close to Kestrel in thrust.
What's impressive isn't just decent performance, but that level of performance with such a cheap engine and quick development program. They did it on startup money.
-
Superpumps are not going to ever beat the highest performance turbopump-based cycle, Ed is right.
But of course, a superpump should be easier to develop and fits in well with a fully electrically actuated rocket.
-
Not sure if this has been mentioned before, but I can't help thinking that with a hydrolox instead of a kerolox engine, they could have skipped the batteries all together and just used some of the LOX and LH2 from the main fuel tanks in a fuel cell to drive the pump (IIRC, hydrogen fuel cells have a higher power density than batteries as well). That would probably improve the overall system weight of electric pumps quite a bit.
-
I expect you could make the same argument for an alcohol fuel cell.. and it'd probably run on kero.
-
IIRC, hydrogen fuel cells have a higher power density than batteries as well
Don't think this is true.
-
How do electric pumps compare to turbopumps and pressure-fed engines as far as high-frequency throttle response? Hydrazine RCS thrusters still need a suitably agile replacement.
-
Not sure if this has been mentioned before, but I can't help thinking that with a hydrolox instead of a kerolox engine, they could have skipped the batteries all together and just used some of the LOX and LH2 from the main fuel tanks in a fuel cell to drive the pump (IIRC, hydrogen fuel cells have a higher power density than batteries as well). That would probably improve the overall system weight of electric pumps quite a bit.
Batteries are a lot cheaper and simple. Plus they get performance increase for free as battery technology improves.
-
Batteries are a lot cheaper and simple. Plus they get performance increase for free as battery technology improves.
Cellphone Batteries => Electric Rockets
Tablets => Glass Cockpit
Any other consumer technologies that can improve aerospace?
-
IIRC, hydrogen fuel cells have a higher power density than batteries as well
Don't think this is true.
Yeah, IIRC higher energy density, much worse power density. At least that's what I understood from Frank Zegler's discussion on IVF on the other thread.
~Jon
-
I expect you could make the same argument for an alcohol fuel cell.. and it'd probably run on kero.
True, but I am not aware of their energy density and efficiency compared to batteries and hydrogen fuel cells. If the thing weights more than the battery, there is no point to it.
IIRC, hydrogen fuel cells have a higher power density than batteries as well
Don't think this is true.
A quick google search reveals a 8 to 10X energy density of fuel cells versus batteries.
Now it is true that batteries have been improving significantly. So that is a valid argument.
Either way, these types of engines might improve with time and fuel types.
-
IIRC, hydrogen fuel cells have a higher power density than batteries as well
Don't think this is true.
Yeah, IIRC higher energy density, much worse power density. At least that's what I understood from Frank Zegler's discussion on IVF on the other thread.
~Jon
Ahh, ok. That is interesting! Thanks Jon!
-
Well, the whole appeal of fuel cells over batteries is their higher energy density, with that energy density depending on what fuel is used.
Usually, the higher the fuel cell's operating temperature, the higher its power output due to faster reaction kinetics. So solid oxide fuel cells, which operate at much higher temperatures than proton exchange membrane, would usually give higher power output.
-
Batteries are a lot cheaper and simple. Plus they get performance increase for free as battery technology improves.
Cellphone Batteries => Electric Rockets
Tablets => Glass Cockpit
Any other consumer technologies that can improve aerospace?
Actually glass cockpits predate main stream tablets like the ipad by several decades first appearing in the early 1980s.
-
Actually glass cockpits predate main stream tablets like the ipad by several decades first appearing in the early 1980s.
Heh, okay - I was just remembering that when Musk presented Dragon 2, it looked like the big screens on the inside were just large tablets. It seems like consumer tablet technology is currently evolving much faster than any glass cockpit systems created by aerospace people - but that's just the kinetics of a larger and more active market.
As for battery technology the energy density of the silver zinc technology previously used in aerospace is not much lower then modern lithium ion batteries.
The biggest problem with the older technology is historically it used mercury and had a very limited number of recharge cycles.
Interestingly now that those two issues have been solved the technology is now being looked at again as a safer alternative to lithium ion.
Does anyone remember a discovery called "Thermopower Wave"? The extremely high power demand of an electric turbopump sounds like a good fit for it:
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/530346/progress-on-a-powerful-new-way-to-generate-electricity/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/tech/carbon-nanotube-fuses-unleash-surge-electrons-called-thermopower-wave/
http://www.nature.com/nmat/journal/v9/n5/abs/nmat2714.html
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/multimedia/2013/feb/19/what-is-a-thermopower-wave
-
He may have artificially hobbled the turbopump. He's assuming a relatively unsophisticated turbopump that uses decomposition of MMH for it's gas source and further requires a cooling water supply that is injected to keep the turbine inlet temperatures in check. A gas generator running on LOX/RP-1 might do better, as might one that has higher temperature metallurgy.
Yes, comparing modern battery and electric motors against 60s TP with additional water circuit shows heavy bias. There's a crude error too, TP mass is calculated knowing pump power requirement and using pump specific power (22kW/kg) and turbine specific power (18kW/kg) separately. Combined specific power is 9.9kW/kg while their reference NASA SP-8107 shows 17.6kW/kg (10.7hp/lbm) for the entire TPA. LR87 TPA is geared which adds mass further. Single shaft F-1 TPA shows 27kW/kg in the same reference. Modern TPA kW/kg numbers should have three digits before decimal separator like SSME had. Turbine efficiency seems lowballed too, causing higher gg mass penalty than it should be.
-
Note that this is a comparison with gas generator turbopump engines, which loose several percentage points of efficiency by tossing the turbopump exhaust overboard. Staged combustion turbopump engines would likely outperform electric pump engines.
True of expander as well. But, the costs associated with this are much higher. Faced with developing an engine like that or even just buying RL-10, Orbital went with a solid stage. Electric seems much more economical than any turbopump, especially at small size; Rutherford is pretty close to Kestrel in thrust.
What's impressive isn't just decent performance, but that level of performance with such a cheap engine and quick development program. They did it on startup money.
Expander is a great cycle. It is simple and efficient. There are some major drawbacks though. It has to use cryogenic propellant, either fuel or oxidizer. The colder the better which means LH2 has pretty much been the only one worth using this cycle for. The other drawback is limited thrust these engines can provide. As the thrust increases the heat exchange that drives the cycle becomes less effective.
Hydrogen is a more expensive fuel to use than RP-1 so I can understand why they chose not to use it. I would bet that the extra difficulties in designing and building an LH2 pump outweigh the simplicity of designing an expander cycle. Based on the DC-X which was powered by four RL-10s a small team can effectively use a hydrogen expander rocket. However they were able to use off the shelf engines and didn't have to design and build it themselves.
-
I expect you could make the same argument for an alcohol fuel cell.. and it'd probably run on kero.
True, but I am not aware of their energy density and efficiency compared to batteries and hydrogen fuel cells. If the thing weights more than the battery, there is no point to it.
IIRC, hydrogen fuel cells have a higher power density than batteries as well
Don't think this is true.
A quick google search reveals a 8 to 10X energy density of fuel cells versus batteries.
Now it is true that batteries have been improving significantly. So that is a valid argument.
Either way, these types of engines might improve with time and fuel types.
This is likely hydrogen fuel cells at some given pressure reacting with atmospheric oxygen through a PEM, and being said to contain lots of energy per unit mass of hydrogen. That's not a valid number on a spacecraft where there is no atmosphere.
Aside from that:
Fuel cells and flow batteries dis-aggregate the association between discharge rate and capacity that exists with batteries. It is possible to design one that uses all its energy storage arbitrarily fast, at the expense of increased total system mass without increased energy storage.
AFAICT, the only big improvements on lithium ion batteries in the last ten years have been increasing the safe charge & discharge rate by a factor of five or ten in LiPos with new anode & cathode chemistries. This has been basically irrelevant for battery life, and affects only high-power applications, and possibly but not definitely charging rates.
-
This is likely hydrogen fuel cells at some given pressure reacting with atmospheric oxygen through a PEM, and being said to contain lots of energy per unit mass of hydrogen. That's not a valid number on a spacecraft where there is no atmosphere.
Aside from that:
Fuel cells and flow batteries dis-aggregate the association between discharge rate and capacity that exists with batteries. It is possible to design one that uses all its energy storage arbitrarily fast, at the expense of increased total system mass without increased energy storage.
AFAICT, the only big improvements on lithium ion batteries in the last ten years have been increasing the safe charge & discharge rate by a factor of five or ten in LiPos with new anode & cathode chemistries. This has been basically irrelevant for battery life, and affects only high-power applications, and possibly but not definitely charging rates.
Another improvement to battery technology is renewed interest in silver zinc chemistry due to recent improvements to the technology.
They're safer due to a water based electrolyte that is not flammable and now that mercury is no longer needed are more environmentally friendly.
Wh per kg is somewhat worse about the same as mid range LiPos but Wh per liter is much better.
-
IIRC, hydrogen fuel cells have a higher power density than batteries as well
Don't think this is true.
A quick google search reveals a 8 to 10X energy density of fuel cells versus batteries.
You said power density not energy density, which are different things.
-
Actually glass cockpits predate main stream tablets like the ipad by several decades first appearing in the early 1980s.
Heh, okay - I was just remembering that when Musk presented Dragon 2, it looked like the big screens on the inside were just large tablets. It seems like consumer tablet technology is currently evolving much faster than any glass cockpit systems created by aerospace people - but that's just the kinetics of a larger and more active market.
More accurately maybe; Tablets=No Cockpit? :)
(Imagine a capsule in orbit tumbling around as the "pilot" curses "Who the !@#%^ is playing KSP while hooked into the capsule WiFi????" :) )
Randy
-
How's the comparison with something like decomposed H2O2 run through a turbopump and then into the combustion chamber similar to a staged combustion engine?
(Yes I have a specific engine in mind :) )
Randy
-
IIRC, hydrogen fuel cells have a higher power density than batteries as well
Don't think this is true.
A quick google search reveals a 8 to 10X energy density of fuel cells versus batteries.
You said power density not energy density, which are different things.
Yeah, sloppy writing there on my side.
-
That is a key difference. Fuel cells have much worse power density than LiPos. (A couple orders of magnitude difference, comparing a hobby LiPo to a typical aerospace fuel cell.)
-
AFAICT, the only big improvements on lithium ion batteries in the last ten years have been increasing the safe charge & discharge rate by a factor of five or ten in LiPos with new anode & cathode chemistries. This has been basically irrelevant for battery life, and affects only high-power applications, and possibly but not definitely charging rates.
Disagree, lithium ion has an improvement rate of 5+ percent annually, doubling time is <15 years. When did the first 2 AH 18650 cell come out, after 2000? You can get over 4 AH now.
-
This might belong elsewhere, but I wanted to comment:
Expander is a great cycle. It is simple and efficient. There are some major drawbacks though. It has to use cryogenic propellant, either fuel or oxidizer. The colder the better which means LH2 has pretty much been the only one worth using this cycle for. The other drawback is limited thrust these engines can provide. As the thrust increases the heat exchange that drives the cycle becomes less effective.
While expander cycles typically run cryogenic, they don't theoretically have to. Typically you want to run the coolant at pressures high enough to be supercritical, and the critical pressure for kerosene is only 150psi. I remember hearing that someone (P&W I think) was doing work on a Kersosene expander using some of the techniques they had learned from scramjet research to avoid coking in the cooling channels. You probably couldn't bootstrap such a cycle like you could a more traditional cryogenic expander cycle engine, where latent heat in the engine provides enough energy to start the ball moving, but otherwise it might be perfectly workable. And since kerosene is like 10-12x higher density than LH2, it means that far less of your pump energy is going into pumping the fuel, so a kerosene expander should be able to go a lot higher thrust than a hydrogen expander, and there were already concepts for driving expander cycles closer to 60-100klbf.
All that said, I really like the electropump and agree for small sizes they look really interesting.
~Jon
-
All that said, I really like the electropump and agree for small sizes they look really interesting.
It seems like a really good illustration of the principle that it's advantageous to use a technology that can be brought to market quickly with low cost.
There's a number of expanders (MB-60/RL-60, XCOR, Vinci) that have spent a long time in development and likely won't fly for years more, often stalling due to lack of funding, while it looks like Rutherford's development cycle was extremely quick on the strength of a few rounds of venture funding and we may see one in orbit this year.
It's true Rutherford is smaller than any of those, but it's pinned to technologies that improve themselves without any input from the space industry. I think the area of usefulness will tend to increase over time.
-
It certainly doesn't make sense to spend a lot of money on tech development when you don't have the experience to cash in on it. Whether or not we'll see this engine fly is still a question.
-
It certainly doesn't make sense to spend a lot of money on tech development when you don't have the experience to cash in on it.
Agreed, but the development on expander looks borderline unaffordable even for the incumbents.
These 10+ year development cycles are bad news. Things change. Assumptions that made sense at the outset can get invalidated by the time you're done, then some or all of the investment can get stranded. Constant payments over that long even if they're small can add up to a lot and could well have gotten better returns elsewhere, especially if the engine ends up getting canceled, as so many engines do. You can pay more to accelerate development but then the bill is due all at once, harder to fund it out of existing revenue streams.
Conversely a quick, cheap development cycle that starts providing returns sooner may well be the better investment, even if the performance isn't as good.
-
This might belong elsewhere, but I wanted to comment:
Expander is a great cycle. It is simple and efficient. There are some major drawbacks though. It has to use cryogenic propellant, either fuel or oxidizer. The colder the better which means LH2 has pretty much been the only one worth using this cycle for. The other drawback is limited thrust these engines can provide. As the thrust increases the heat exchange that drives the cycle becomes less effective.
While expander cycles typically run cryogenic, they don't theoretically have to. Typically you want to run the coolant at pressures high enough to be supercritical, and the critical pressure for kerosene is only 150psi. I remember hearing that someone (P&W I think) was doing work on a Kersosene expander using some of the techniques they had learned from scramjet research to avoid coking in the cooling channels. You probably couldn't bootstrap such a cycle like you could a more traditional cryogenic expander cycle engine, where latent heat in the engine provides enough energy to start the ball moving, but otherwise it might be perfectly workable. And since kerosene is like 10-12x higher density than LH2, it means that far less of your pump energy is going into pumping the fuel, so a kerosene expander should be able to go a lot higher thrust than a hydrogen expander, and there were already concepts for driving expander cycles closer to 60-100klbf.
All that said, I really like the electropump and agree for small sizes they look really interesting.
~Jon
That is interesting that RP-1 can be used in an expander. If I remember right volume is what drive the power requirement on a turbo pump and not mass. So that using the same pump and power a higher density propellant would pump more mass. Does the phase change of RP-1 give less power than LH2? If so is that more than made up for by RP-1's higher density needing less power to pump? Also if one were designing an RP-1/LOX expander why not just use LOX?
-
It certainly doesn't make sense to spend a lot of money on tech development when you don't have the experience to cash in on it. Whether or not we'll see this engine fly is still a question.
Given RocketLab's history I'm sure it will fly at least once, the question is whether they will actually be able to fly paying customers.
-
Disagree, lithium ion has an improvement rate of 5+ percent annually, doubling time is <15 years. When did the first 2 AH 18650 cell come out, after 2000? You can get over 4 AH now.
A reference for genuine >4Ah 18650, please. Haven't seen anything above 3.4Ah Panasonic cell that isn't fake Chinese crap.
-
This might belong elsewhere, but I wanted to comment:
Expander is a great cycle. It is simple and efficient. There are some major drawbacks though. It has to use cryogenic propellant, either fuel or oxidizer. The colder the better which means LH2 has pretty much been the only one worth using this cycle for. The other drawback is limited thrust these engines can provide. As the thrust increases the heat exchange that drives the cycle becomes less effective.
While expander cycles typically run cryogenic, they don't theoretically have to. Typically you want to run the coolant at pressures high enough to be supercritical, and the critical pressure for kerosene is only 150psi. I remember hearing that someone (P&W I think) was doing work on a Kersosene expander using some of the techniques they had learned from scramjet research to avoid coking in the cooling channels. You probably couldn't bootstrap such a cycle like you could a more traditional cryogenic expander cycle engine, where latent heat in the engine provides enough energy to start the ball moving, but otherwise it might be perfectly workable. And since kerosene is like 10-12x higher density than LH2, it means that far less of your pump energy is going into pumping the fuel, so a kerosene expander should be able to go a lot higher thrust than a hydrogen expander, and there were already concepts for driving expander cycles closer to 60-100klbf.
All that said, I really like the electropump and agree for small sizes they look really interesting.
~Jon
That is interesting that RP-1 can be used in an expander. If I remember right volume is what drive the power requirement on a turbo pump and not mass. So that using the same pump and power a higher density propellant would pump more mass. Does the phase change of RP-1 give less power than LH2? If so is that more than made up for by RP-1's higher density needing less power to pump? Also if one were designing an RP-1/LOX expander why not just use LOX?
To be honest, I'm not much of turbopump guy or thermodynamicist. I just used to build rocket engines (pressure-fed ones).
~Jon
-
Disagree, lithium ion has an improvement rate of 5+ percent annually, doubling time is <15 years. When did the first 2 AH 18650 cell come out, after 2000? You can get over 4 AH now.
A reference for genuine >4Ah 18650, please. Haven't seen anything above 3.4Ah Panasonic cell that isn't fake Chinese crap.
Here's one for 3600mAh and is real:
http://lygte-info.dk/review/batteries2012/Orbtronic%2018650%203600mAh%20%28Black%29%20UK.html
I believe the 4000mAh Panasonic ones are being sampled now, even if they haven't been officially released.
Anyway, the point is still valid: Battery energy density HAS been significantly increasing as time goes on and is likely to continue (although I don't think Li-Ion will /ever/ more than double again from the current state of the art, there are other battery chemistries that can continue the progress).
-
You need much smaller cells than the 18650 to get the required power density. The panasonic 3400mAh cells are 2C discharge rate, or about 23W per cell. To get the megawatt needed for the Electron, that's 43252 cells which at a weight of 46g each gives a pack weight of 2000kg just for the cells. You can do better with the stuff I found on hobbyking (small 20C Li poly cells).
-
You need much smaller cells than the 18650 to get the required power density. The panasonic 3400mAh cells are 2C discharge rate, or about 23W per cell. To get the megawatt needed for the Electron, that's 43252 cells which at a weight of 46g each gives a pack weight of 2000kg just for the cells. You can do better with the stuff I found on hobbyking (small 20C Li poly cells).
Of course. You would use those 100-150C hobby LiPos.
I was merely countering the idea that battery specific energy has not markedly improved over the introduction and widespread use of lithium ion batteries. Specific energy has about doubled and could possibly nearly double again (eventually), though my guess is that most of the new improvements will come from switching to another chemistry.
-
Disagree, lithium ion has an improvement rate of 5+ percent annually, doubling time is <15 years. When did the first 2 AH 18650 cell come out, after 2000? You can get over 4 AH now.
A reference for genuine >4Ah 18650, please. Haven't seen anything above 3.4Ah Panasonic cell that isn't fake Chinese crap.
Here's one for 3600mAh and is real:
http://lygte-info.dk/review/batteries2012/Orbtronic%2018650%203600mAh%20%28Black%29%20UK.html
I believe the 4000mAh Panasonic ones are being sampled now, even if they haven't been officially released.
Anyway, the point is still valid: Battery energy density HAS been significantly increasing as time goes on and is likely to continue (although I don't think Li-Ion will /ever/ more than double again from the current state of the art, there are other battery chemistries that can continue the progress).
Thanks! I was not countering the idea of battery improvements as surely even 3.4 was bigger number than 2 but was interested if even better cells are really available because might myself be interested in buying them if the price is right. Bought some 18650 and 26650 flashlights last winter and found the hard way that those cheap Ebay Chinese 8000mAh 18650s are cack. Wiser now, Korean 2600mAh cells had Wh/$ sweet spot.
What's the best specific energy primary battery chemistry today with adequate discharge rate? Just wondering what they use in second stage.
-
I believe the 4000mAh Panasonic ones are being sampled now, even if they haven't been officially released.
Ah, thanks. I had seen 4120 mah for those. Also didn't realize they were sampling rather than being generally available. Mea culpa. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I was merely countering the idea that battery specific energy has not markedly improved over the introduction and widespread use of lithium ion batteries.
Yes. Picking a specific form factor is useful to track progress over time, and 18650 is perhaps the most common.
-
You need much smaller cells than the 18650 to get the required power density. The panasonic 3400mAh cells are 2C discharge rate, or about 23W per cell. To get the megawatt needed for the Electron, that's 43252 cells which at a weight of 46g each gives a pack weight of 2000kg just for the cells. You can do better with the stuff I found on hobbyking (small 20C Li poly cells).
Of course. You would use those 100-150C hobby LiPos.
I was merely countering the idea that battery specific energy has not markedly improved over the introduction and widespread use of lithium ion batteries. Specific energy has about doubled and could possibly nearly double again (eventually), though my guess is that most of the new improvements will come from switching to another chemistry.
Completely agree. Li-ion theoretical limit is something like 406 Wh/kg, and those 18650's are at around 250. There are experimental cells that approach the limit, but only at very low discharge rates (0.1C). So, that's what will probably continue to improve, getting more power density without giving up energy density.
The competitive pressure to improve these things is intense, given how important they are to the performance/useability of smartphones, laptops, and EVs. And improving the capacity at high discharge rates really means lowering the internal resistance, which makes the cell more efficient for a lot of uses. So there is pressure to do that.
-
What's the best specific energy primary battery chemistry today with adequate discharge rate? Just wondering what they use in second stage.
Linked earlier: http://www.dima.uniroma1.it:8080/STAFF2/jpp12r3.pdf
Relevant to your question is Figure 2 on page 33, it varies based on burn time, and as you suggest the longer burn time does change the optimal choice. I'd assume that graph changes over time as new battery technology becomes available and Rocket Lab will update as appropriate.
-
I was merely countering the idea that battery specific energy has not markedly improved over the introduction and widespread use of lithium ion batteries. Specific energy has about doubled and could possibly nearly double again (eventually), though my guess is that most of the new improvements will come from switching to another chemistry.
Yeah, that about lines up with my understanding. Other chemistries like lithium sulfur potentially get into kwh/kg territory but have to nail down side reactions that limit cell life, though I think rockets can tolerate lower cell life than cars, even if they want to be reusable.
Lithium sulfur has lower instantaneous power as the above paper calls out, currently needs a burn time over 600 seconds to break even, though you'd expect that to improve over time.
For plain old lithium ion (or polymer) though, my take is that if it's marginal now when you save a ton of money on other complexity, a factor of 2, or even 5% per year for a few years, is actually pretty substantial. In an industry where RL-10 can be king of the hill well into its 5th decade, 5% a year is huge.
-
Trying to take a stab at the second stage ISP they're getting based on the pictures on the website...
http://www.rocketlabusa.com/static/images/first-stage-hi.png
http://www.rocketlabusa.com/static/images/second-stage-hi.png
Scaling the second stage picture so the combustion chamber is the same number of pixels across as the first stage, I get 160 and 365 pixels across for the nozzle so the expansion ratio from that would be something like 5.5x larger.
Taking a stab at sea level expansion ratio, looks like something like 12. Which would suggest a chamber pressure on the low side, like maybe 800 psi or less. That makes sense if there's a large mass penalty for increasing pump power.
Getting to upper stage ISP from this info is over my head.
-
Trying to take a stab at the second stage ISP they're getting based on the pictures on the website...
http://www.rocketlabusa.com/static/images/first-stage-hi.png
http://www.rocketlabusa.com/static/images/second-stage-hi.png
Two large battery packs? much heavier than engine. May also be more heavy than 2nd stage tank.
-
You do realize that good LiPos can get upwards of 5-10kW/kg, right? That's much, much better than the engine in your car, I guarantee it.
-
Two large battery packs?
How do you know that?
If all non-fuel stuff is represented there presumably there's a pressurized pod for avionics.
-
You do realize that good LiPos can get upwards of 5-10kW/kg, right? That's much, much better than the engine in your car, I guarantee it.
http://www.a123systems.com/prismatic-cell-ahp14.htm
A123 best 4kw/kg plus
36kwe 9kg, 100kwe 25kg.
Which is correct? Engine 36kee but first stage 1Mwe from different news
-
Two large battery packs?
How do you know that?
If all non-fuel stuff is represented there presumably there's a pressurized pod for avionics.
Should be so, compared to calculated weight.
-
Trying to take a stab at the second stage ISP they're getting based on the pictures on the website...
http://www.rocketlabusa.com/static/images/first-stage-hi.png
http://www.rocketlabusa.com/static/images/second-stage-hi.png
Scaling the second stage picture so the combustion chamber is the same number of pixels across as the first stage, I get 160 and 365 pixels across for the nozzle so the expansion ratio from that would be something like 5.5x larger.
Taking a stab at sea level expansion ratio, looks like something like 12. Which would suggest a chamber pressure on the low side, like maybe 800 psi or less. That makes sense if there's a large mass penalty for increasing pump power.
Getting to upper stage ISP from this info is over my head.
On the subject of pump power, would it make sense to run the first stage engines on a profile such you gradually throttle back as atmospheric pressure and vehicle weight reduces? What's the exit pressure that goes with your 800 psi and a 12:1 nozzle?
Normally under-expanded exhaust just means you're not getting the most out of your propellant, but for this engine it also means you spent too much electrical power (and battery weight) running at that chamber pressure. There must be a point at which the weight penalty for additional battery power to run at a higher chamber pressure isn't offset by reduced gravity loss from the increased thrust.
If those two pods are the battery packs for the second stage, where did they put all the batteries for the first stage? At the top of the first stage to help aerodynamic stability (move cg up closer to cp as tanks empty)? Supposing that the 2nd stage burn was 3x as long as the first stage, you'd still need 3x more batteries on the first stage.
-
On the subject of pump power, would it make sense to run the first stage engines on a profile such you gradually throttle back as atmospheric pressure and vehicle weight reduces?
I see what you're talking about, this can probably be answered with a spreadsheet but not a spreadsheet I have. :)
What's the exit pressure that goes with your 800 psi and a 12:1 nozzle?
I'm not actually sure, I'm basically scaling from Merlin 1C. 12:1 would be 66 psi or so, but isn't there a Bernoulli thing going on here as well since the exhaust velocity is large?
Your question reminded me of a picture that was posted of a Rutherford test. Googled some pictures... here's a comparison to Merlin:
https://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/rutherford-test.jpg
http://33.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m67uwzl0N01rti11fo1_1280.jpg
Merlin is a little under-expanded as can be seen from the exhaust continuing to expand, but Rutherford actually pinches in a little which suggests it's a little over-expanded. This can be gotten away with to an extent if care is taken with the nozzle design, I think SSME did this. That might suggest an even lower chamber pressure, like maybe 500 psi. That's still much higher than pressure fed, the examples I've looked at are <200 psi.
Normally under-expanded exhaust just means you're not getting the most out of your propellant, but for this engine it also means you spent too much electrical power (and battery weight) running at that chamber pressure. There must be a point at which the weight penalty for additional battery power to run at a higher chamber pressure isn't offset by reduced gravity loss from the increased thrust.
Yup, can be traded with nozzle mass as well. This point is well taken.
If those two pods are the battery packs for the second stage, where did they put all the batteries for the first stage?
Inside the carbon fiber body somewhere? The exterior is too crowded on the first stage and it needs to be aerodynamic for supersonic flight.
Supposing that the 2nd stage burn was 3x as long as the first stage, you'd still need 3x more batteries on the first stage.
3x per engine you mean? Agreed, but there's a trade there, see the linked paper. Since the discharge time is longer it may allow a different chemistry with better specific energy and worse specific power.
-
1/3 per engine, 9 engines, 3x total
-
What's the exit pressure that goes with your 800 psi and a 12:1 nozzle?
I'm not actually sure, I'm basically scaling from Merlin 1C. 12:1 would be 66 psi or so, but isn't there a Bernoulli thing going on here as well since the exhaust velocity is large?
Your question reminded me of a picture that was posted of a Rutherford test. Googled some pictures... here's a comparison to Merlin:
https://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/rutherford-test.jpg
http://33.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m67uwzl0N01rti11fo1_1280.jpg
Merlin is a little under-expanded as can be seen from the exhaust continuing to expand, but Rutherford actually pinches in a little which suggests it's a little over-expanded. This can be gotten away with to an extent if care is taken with the nozzle design, I think SSME did this. That might suggest an even lower chamber pressure, like maybe 500 psi. That's still much higher than pressure fed, the examples I've looked at are <200 psi.
I suspect this model is a bit of an educational toy: http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/ienzl.html (http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/ienzl.html)
But if you turn the knobs to make it look like rutherford (kerolox, Pc 800 psi, 12:1 expansion, scale throat area to 3.81 in^2 for 4600 lbf sea level thrust) you get exhaust pressure about 7psi, which goes with your over-expanded observation.
This model only gives 270/309 Isp split for the 1st stage engine though. I guess we conclude that the 327 Isp on their web site is for the vacuum version? If you increase the area ratio to 39 in vacuum, this model gives 327 and 5300lbf for the same chamber pressure.
-
This model only gives 270/309 Isp split for the 1st stage engine though. I guess we conclude that the 327 Isp on their web site is for the vacuum version? If you increase the area ratio to 39 in vacuum, this model gives 327 and 5300lbf for the same chamber pressure.
Not sure about this. From how the page is worded I got the impression their specs were for the sea level engine in vacuum.
http://www.rocketlabusa.com/about-us/propulsion/rutherford/ - "The Rutherford Engine is an electric turbo-pumped LOX/RP-1 engine specifically designed for the Electron launch vehicle, capable of 4,600 lbf thrust and with an ISP of 327 s."
4600 * 9 is pretty close to the vac thrust given for the first stage of 40000 lbf, so that makes me think 327s is for the first stage in vac, but this is definitely worth questioning.
-
Merlin is a little under-expanded as can be seen from the exhaust continuing to expand,
At SL, no. Over-expanded like all booster engines.
but Rutherford actually pinches in a little which suggests it's a little over-expanded. This can be gotten away with to an extent if care is taken with the nozzle design, I think SSME did this. That might suggest an even lower chamber pressure, like maybe 500 psi.
You can over-expand at SL without nozzle tricks to a certain limit (~0.5atm), the limit depends on the propellants used. SSME nozzle lip tricks pushed that limit even further.
The data on Rocketlabs page seems a bit self-contradictory;
Electron’s first stage is powered by multiple Rutherford engines with a total peak thrust of 146.6kN, enough to lift a fully laden double decker bus off the ground.
• Lift off thrust: 152kN (34,500lbf)
• Peak thrust: 183kN (41,500lbf)
If the 327s is achieved with the higher value denoting first stage vacuum thrust then SL Isp is 272s assuming same throttle setting. The drop is quite high suggesting low chamber pressure and higher area ratio.
I can't get anything close to 327s vacuum performance with 800psi and 12:1 in RPA. 269s/310s when real losses are estimated into the figures.
-
I can't get anything close to 327s vacuum performance with 800psi and 12:1 in RPA. 269s/310s when real losses are estimated into the figures.
It seems to me that the vacuum ISP will largely depend on the expansion ratio if you're not talking about changing fuels. The toy model was pretty close to RPA for this, it seems as it got 270/309. I had to push the expansion ratio up to 39:1 to get 327 vacuum ISP. So, either the 12:1 is wrong, or the 327 ISP is for the vacuum version with the bigger bell.
The expansion ratio you can get away with (SSME tricks notwithstanding) seems to be largely governed by by the chamber pressure -- higher chamber pressure means you can have more expansion and still have 0.5atm exit pressure. However they can't be playing too many tricks with that as they quote a vacuum thrust that's higher than the takeoff thrust. So they can't have dropped the chamber pressure much.
-
At SL, no. Over-expanded like all booster engines.
Interesting, thanks.
I can't get anything close to 327s vacuum performance with 800psi and 12:1 in RPA. 269s/310s when real losses are estimated into the figures.
Interesting. I think it's even harder to argue for a really high chamber pressure so that may have to be considered ISP with the vac nozzle.
-
$4.9M for 100 kg to SSO is $49,000 a kg. That's not cheap!
-
$4.9M for 100 kg to SSO is $49,000 a kg. That's not cheap!
The small launchers usually aren't trying to compete on a $/kg basis, but on overall launch cost. As a secondary payload, your launch schedule is competely at the mercy of the primary. And the primary has veto power over major characteristics of your design that might introduce risk to them (see, for example, the unwillingness of any primary payload to host a Lunar X-prize competitor as a secondary because of the risks).
So it makes sense that at least some customers would be happy to have a launch to themselves, and would pay the extra price for that.
An automobile costs more $/people-km than a bus, but people still ride around in cars because they can provide similar flexibility in schedule and specific destination, right?
The other argument is that if your spacecraft fits in 100 kg, $4.9M is a lot cheaper than $61M for a Falcon 9 or $40M for a Pegasus.
How many people fit into this market is the open question, and the answer may change over the next few years in unpredictable ways.
-
A launchsite has been selected (http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/69859442/rocket-lab-eyes-birdlings-flat-canterbury-as-launch-site); Birdling's Flat, Caterbury, South Island.
Beck said preparations were under way to submit resource consent applications to Christchurch City Council for the launch site.
[..]
Initially Rocket Lab would launch one rocket a month, but aimed to increase frequency to one a week using a number of sites. Beck said.
Doesn't sound like 2015 launch is feasible if applications are still going through, but it's still being given on their site. No date is given in the article itself.
-
Looks like they've selected a launch site; near Christchurch. The article indicates the launch vehicle will also be produced in Christchurch - not Auckland. Seems like an ideal location with wide open flight azimuths.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11473933
The company's chief executive, Peter Beck said the area met all the firm's requirements; a sparse population, a launch path over the ocean and proximity to a city where the 18m tall Electron Rockets can be built.
-
At SL, no. Over-expanded like all booster engines.
Interesting, thanks.
I can't get anything close to 327s vacuum performance with 800psi and 12:1 in RPA. 269s/310s when real losses are estimated into the figures.
Interesting. I think it's even harder to argue for a really high chamber pressure so that may have to be considered ISP with the vac nozzle.
I take it the energy added by pumping is so small it wouldn't add even one second of isp?
-
I take it the energy added by pumping is so small it wouldn't add even one second of isp?
Higher chamber pressure helps because you can use a larger area ratio without becoming excessively over-expanded at sea level, which then helps the vacuum Isp. However if we're assuming the area ratio is fixed at 12:1 based on estimates from photographs, then increasing chamber pressure doesn't help much. You put energy in when you pump up to the chamber pressure, and you get much of that back from the expansion, however the pump isn't 100% efficient and I don't know what other second order factors come into play.
-
I live in Christchurch! If this actually happens I can go out and take photos and videos. But, like all space startups, I'm not holding my breath. Really hoping this goes ahead though.
-
Here is a more informative article from spacenews.
http://spacenews.com/rocket-lab-selects-new-zealand-launch-site/
Still targetting end of year launch.
The launch facilities shouldn't take to long to build looking at artists drawing. Obtaining resource consent maybe an issue, only takes one determined person opposing it to throw a spanner in the works.
-
The N.Z. Green Party is already combating the project, saying the facilities and launches will endanger a small native lizard and too many toxins will get into the landscape :(
http://www.3news.co.nz/nznews/greens-rocket-concerns-blasted-into-orbit-2015070211#axzz3ejE3xvpl
-
I take it the energy added by pumping is so small it wouldn't add even one second of isp?
Higher chamber pressure helps because you can use a larger area ratio without becoming excessively over-expanded at sea level, which then helps the vacuum Isp. However if we're assuming the area ratio is fixed at 12:1 based on estimates from photographs, then increasing chamber pressure doesn't help much. You put energy in when you pump up to the chamber pressure, and you get much of that back from the expansion, however the pump isn't 100% efficient and I don't know what other second order factors come into play.
I meant the electro-chemical energy added to the propellants that was in the batteries, which is going to theoretically increase the ISP. Normally, pumps take the energy from the propellant. The electric pump doesn't. But the energy density of the batteries is still tiny compared to the energy density of kerosene, even when you divide it be 3-4 (to account for the oxidiser weight). I was just wondering if it would be measurable?
-
I wonder if having a large battery pack in orbit would enable any 'pulsed' (once per n orbits) hybrid electro-thermal/chemical systems.
for example:
1)The battery pack is charged by some robust solar panels, once full, slightly before perigee some nitrogen N2O4 is pumped through an electro-thermal heater and decomposed into hot pressurised NO2, this is then burnt with fuel.
2) same idea but with ammonia being pressurised and disassociated electro-thermally before combustion with an oxidizer.
-
I meant the electro-chemical energy added to the propellants that was in the batteries, which is going to theoretically increase the ISP. Normally, pumps take the energy from the propellant. The electric pump doesn't. But the energy density of the batteries is still tiny compared to the energy density of kerosene, even when you divide it be 3-4 (to account for the oxidiser weight). I was just wondering if it would be measurable?
Sure. Consider a gas-generator cycle: the propellants burned in the gas generator then have some energy extracted by the power turbine that drives the pumps, and further may not be expanded nearly as much as propellant burned in the main combustion chamber. So the exhaust velocity from the gas generator stream will be lower than the main combustion stream. The Isp will be reduced by this, compared to the electric pump where the energy to run the pumps is coming from an external source and all the propellant is burned in the main combustion chamber.
The most extreme example to give might be a nuclear thermal rocket. Here you have a component (nuclear core) that contributes to the weight of the engine but does not lose weight (ok, a tiny amount of mass is converted to energy by the fission or fusion reactions). So, this mass, like that of the batteries, contributes to the engine mass and reduces thrust/weight ratio but does not figure in Isp.
Now, what would be nifty for the battery system would be to use some kind of flow battery system where the spent electrolytes could be dumped or even burned or vaporized in the engine somehow for additional mass flow and more thrust.
-
Another news article on this.
Sorry about the idiot presenter, he is one of reasons I hardly watch broadcast TV anymore especially the news.
http://www.3news.co.nz/tvshows/paulhenry/interviews/why-rocket-lab-picked-new-zealand#axzz3eml30ApN
-
I wonder if having a large battery pack in orbit would enable any 'pulsed' (once per n orbits) hybrid electro-thermal/chemical systems.
for example:
1)The battery pack is charged by some robust solar panels, once full, slightly before perigee some nitrogen N2O4 is pumped through an electro-thermal heater and decomposed into hot pressurised NO2, this is then burnt with fuel.
2) same idea but with ammonia being pressurised and disassociated electro-thermally before combustion with an oxidizer.
Electro thermal hydrazine thrusters has been used on satellite for decades.
-
I wonder if having a large battery pack in orbit would enable any 'pulsed' (once per n orbits) hybrid electro-thermal/chemical systems.
for example:
1)The battery pack is charged by some robust solar panels, once full, slightly before perigee some nitrogen N2O4 is pumped through an electro-thermal heater and decomposed into hot pressurised NO2, this is then burnt with fuel.
2) same idea but with ammonia being pressurised and disassociated electro-thermally before combustion with an oxidizer.
Electro thermal hydrazine thrusters has been used on satellite for decades.
sure: eg http://soliton.ae.gatech.edu/people/jseitzma/classes/ae6450/electrothermal_thrusters.pdf (http://soliton.ae.gatech.edu/people/jseitzma/classes/ae6450/electrothermal_thrusters.pdf)
However, I'm not sure they (resistojets) have isp-s any better than pure chemical propulsion.
I was more interested in exploring whether there was a regime slightly better than chemical with isp perhaps 400-550 that would normally be low thrust and undone by the Oberth-effect (because of continuous operation), which could benefit from a pulsed perigee burn. And as the extra energy is coming from batteries, which have rubbish storage capacities, and because energy scales with the square of velocity, it seemed to me that as long as such a pulsed system achieved only marginally better performance than chemical, it might be worth-while. Keeping it marginally better reduces energy requirements and length of time for orbit raising.
Using endothermic reactions would allow the extra energy to be added at lower temperatures and so reduce materials requirements.
Having a decent sized battery pack gratis in orbit might allow slightly larger thrusters than the very small ones on existing systems.
Would tea-cart sized bi-propellant rockets with electro-thermally preheated/disassociated propellants be useful?
If 64% of the energy is from existing chemical reactions then only 36% needs come from the sun. We still get roughly a 25% improvement in ISP.
ISP ~= root of energy =root of 64 = 8,
ISP ~= root of energy =root of 64+36 =10
-
I wonder could the performance be upgraded enough to launch a Oneweb satellite as it seems like it could be a good launcher to use for maintenance of the constellation?
-
However, I'm not sure they (resistojets) have isp-s any better than pure chemical propulsion.
They do, that's biprop ISP from monoprop from your link. Electrics contribute significantly to the heating.
Unfortunately in that case the thrust is tiny, no good for ground launch. The power required to do that at scale would be enormous. With tiny thrusters, solar can keep up.
Look at the specs, it's like 2.5 kw per newton.
-
I wonder could the performance be upgraded enough to launch a Oneweb satellite as it seems like it could be a good launcher to use for maintenance of the constellation?
Nope.
-
I wonder could the performance be upgraded enough to launch a Oneweb satellite as it seems like it could be a good launcher to use for maintenance of the constellation?
Nope.
Virgin's LauncherOne has this job.
-
Virgin's involvement with Oneweb may work in Rocketlab favour. With Launcherone busy servicing OneWeb, Virgin may not have spare Launcherones to compete with Electron.
This would leave Electron's main competition as Firefly and that is not due to start flying till 2017 and 2018 commercially ( high fly rates).
If Rocketlab can have the market to themselves for 2 years they should be able to recover their setup costs and be in position to reduce prices come 2018.
-
If RocketLab actually starts flying customers next year it's likely to have a huge effect on the smallsat market.
Of course, that goes for any smallsat launch provider who actually starts flying soon, as they'll be the first to market.
-
This LV segment is going to interesting watch. Just like their cubesat payloads I expect these LVs to evolve at quicker pace than the large GTO LVs.
-
Here is one of reasons Rocket lab is launch from NZ. Of cause manufacturing here, exchange rate, quiet airspace and CEO being NZer are big factors.
http://www.wired.com/2015/07/feds-big-problem-private-rocket-launches/
-
Here is one of reasons Rocket lab is launch from NZ. Of cause manufacturing here, exchange rate, quiet airspace and CEO being NZer are big factors.
http://www.wired.com/2015/07/feds-big-problem-private-rocket-launches/
Quiet airspace?? Not sure the CAANZ agree with you... but, for Rocketlab's sake, I do hope they can invent a workable launch licensing system before Rocketlab need one otherwise the Electron won't be leaving the Launchpad.
http://www.transport.govt.nz/air/airspace/
There's no shortage of bureaucracy in NZ.. ;D
-
The air traffic south east of Christchurch is not that busy especially compared to Florida.
According to Peter Beck it is $400 for launch license.
-
Why the company goes USA?
Here is one of reasons Rocket lab is launch from NZ. Of cause manufacturing here, exchange rate, quiet airspace and CEO being NZer are big factors.
http://www.wired.com/2015/07/feds-big-problem-private-rocket-launches/
-
Why the company goes USA?
Here is one of reasons Rocket lab is launch from NZ. Of cause manufacturing here, exchange rate, quiet airspace and CEO being NZer are big factors.
http://www.wired.com/2015/07/feds-big-problem-private-rocket-launches/
Being US registered company allows them to launch US govt payloads. For DOD launches they may need a US factory and launch pads.
-
RocketLab signs commercial space launch act agreement:
http://www.rocketlabusa.com/rocket-lab-and-nasa-sign-commercial-space-launch-act-agreement/
Any NASA policy experts have a read on this? Appears to be an (unfunded) agreement with RL and NASA to use the Cape's launch facilities. I wonder how transfer of information between NASA launch engineers and NZ citizens works with ITAR.
-
Here is another article on this agreement.
The bit I find interesting is "re entry efforts."
http://i.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/70716001/rocket-lab-signs-deal-to-work-with-nasa
-
They'll be another boring NASA contractor in no time.
-
They'll be another boring NASA contractor in no time.
If no one else is paying, then why not?
-
If no one else is paying, then why not?
How to tell if a startup is truly "commercial" or a government contractor still breaking out of the egg: do they have sales people? Is that who you talked to at the conference? If not, they don't want your money.
-
^Yaaaack!
The commercial aspect of commercial space is not who the customers are, but who designs, owns and operates the vehicles; Who sets and controls the internal management structure of the companies and so forth.
It is a facile cheap shot to condemn companies that operate in this relatively marginal sector of the economy for accepting money to provide services to the the biggest single customer in that market. Most people would call that being a savvy businessman.
When governments, who were responsible for the development of most of these systems in the 20th Century buy your services, it sends out a good message to other possible customers. NASA, The U.S Air Force or another Space Agency saying you're a cool guy and good to go..... helps build credibility, weirdly enough.
We could have immaculate, ideologically pure space startups who would accept no money from governments...but then we'd quickly have both no space startups followed swiftly by no new methods/technologies to increase the accessibility of outerspace. It will be decades before governments decline in their share of the market to being no more important than anyone else for the planning of a startup.
I've heard such arguments being used to decry how Apollo stunted going to the Moon because of centralized state bureaucracy; that if it had been 100% left up private enterprise, we'd been there cheaper, better and faster. However if we'd actually gone with that plan, we'd definitely have had to fake the Moon landings! ;)
I say Godspeed to them, because the costs/risks are so high and the probable returns so low/negative, that fledgling companies like this must fight for every penny they can get or go bust! See below:
<---------------Realism / Ideological Purity--------------->
-
Actually, we can't have ideologically pure space startups that don't take any government money... and that's the problem. Everyone who has tried to do that has been squashed into the ground by the powers that be. Either you cooperate or you're out of business. Rocketlab are learning that, and it's sad to watch.
-
Actually, we can't have ideologically pure space startups that don't take any government money... and that's the problem. Everyone who has tried to do that has been squashed into the ground by the powers that be. Either you cooperate or you're out of business. Rocketlab are learning that, and it's sad to watch.
And how, in your opinion, do we solve this problem?
Rocketlab seem to be progressing nicely and filling their own little niche.
-
And how, in your opinion, do we solve this problem?
Why would you assume I know?
Rocketlab seem to be progressing nicely and filling their own little niche.
How do you figure? So far they're progressing like every other launch startup except SpaceX, none of which have gotten to space. Think about what that niche is, get it firmly in your head, and watch as it slowly goes away over the next few years.
-
Sure, but ideological purity is not the magic wand that makes that problem go away. The problem is mostly an aspect of the inherent characteristics of the specific technologies themselves at this stage in their development. They are not like other technologies America loves to export everywhere, like say: Airplanes, Cars and Computers!
The wand that makes that go away is these companies being able to get in the door in the first place without keeling over, so they can develop technologies like reusability, cheaper assembly and components. And that will be a slow and ugly process for the time being. But that's greatly preferable to nothing.
If you enacted Rapture tomorrow as the basis of government, you would still not get a booming space market launching 30m Sea Dragons from private aquatic enterprise to Elysium in orbit! Totally sans-government interference, or any other potential boogeymen, smart enough capitalists would do a quick mental calculation of risk vs reward at this stage of the technology and decide this is not a short term cash cow and I will probably lose multiple millions; As Mitt Romney elegantly put it : "You're Fired!"
I'll be keeping tabs on this company for the next couple of years, and I hope the best for them.
-
Actually, we can't have ideologically pure space startups that don't take any government money... and that's the problem. Everyone who has tried to do that has been squashed into the ground by the powers that be. Either you cooperate or you're out of business. Rocketlab are learning that, and it's sad to watch.
Perhaps there is some grand conspiracy, or perhaps the grand smallsat market you champion... just isn't there?
-
Perhaps there is some grand conspiracy, or perhaps the grand smallsat market you champion... just isn't there?
and perhaps you've never gone to a space conference and spoken to person after person who can't get a launch. The pent-up demand for smallsat launch is real.. it's clearly a supply problem, and everyone know this.
-
I don't think Rocket lab are relying on NASA business to be successful, not even sure if they can launch NASA payloads from NZ.
The NASA connection is more about having access to NASA's new small LV pad facilities at the Cape.
-
Perhaps there is some grand conspiracy, or perhaps the grand smallsat market you champion... just isn't there?
and perhaps you've never gone to a space conference and spoken to person after person who can't get a launch. The pent-up demand for smallsat launch is real.. it's clearly a supply problem, and everyone know this.
No. If all those people you encounter at space conferences were willing to pony up the current asking price (even the low numbers these new providers claim to offer), there would be no issue. The market would be self-evident. But they clearly aren't. It is clearly a funding issue. Or?
I'd love to go to space. As would millions of people. But we aren't willing to (or cannot) pay $20+ million per person and the hassle of months of russian training to do it. So very few people are actually doing it. You could call that a supply problem if you want - but that is being very simplistic.
-
What are you talking about? The problem is - and has been for years - that there isn't enough smallsat launch providers. There's been Pegasus and Dnepr-1, both of which are mostly unavailable these days, and there's ride shares. There's a long line of people waiting for a reliable launch provider, but the same thing tends to happen to all of them - they get deals for bigger payload launches and their attention moves. The same thing will happen to Rocketlab. The reason so many people thought LauncherOne would be different is because of the inherent limitation of WhiteKnightTwo.. then, surprise surprise, Stratolaunch comes along and now VG are planning to leapfrog to a LauncherTwo, leaving the smallsats in the lurch again. The problem isn't demand, it's that everyone who starts on the path to actually fielding a smallsat launcher gets offered development bucks and it's a lot easier to just keep on developing than it is to actually start flying.
-
What are you talking about? The problem is - and has been for years - that there isn't enough smallsat launch providers. There's been Pegasus and Dnepr-1, both of which are mostly unavailable these days, and there's ride shares. There's a long line of people waiting for a reliable launch provider, but the same thing tends to happen to all of them - they get deals for bigger payload launches and their attention moves. The same thing will happen to Rocketlab. The reason so many people thought LauncherOne would be different is because of the inherent limitation of WhiteKnightTwo.. then, surprise surprise, Stratolaunch comes along and now VG are planning to leapfrog to a LauncherTwo, leaving the smallsats in the lurch again. The problem isn't demand, it's that everyone who starts on the path to actually fielding a smallsat launcher gets offered development bucks and it's a lot easier to just keep on developing than it is to actually start flying.
So, there's a massive untapped market of smallsats that desperately need launches, and no one is providing? Where's your business plan? Sounds like a fine opportunity.
-
What are you talking about? The problem is - and has been for years - that there isn't enough smallsat launch providers. There's been Pegasus and Dnepr-1, both of which are mostly unavailable these days, and there's ride shares.
And why are Pegasus and Dnepr-1 unavailable? Perhaps it might be because not enough *actual* customers (vs people who claim to be) are showing up? I'm sure OrbitalATK would be happy to fly a Pegasus payload, if someone actually wanted to pay for it.
-
Here is another local article, little info on launch pad restrictions.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/top/280016/rocket-lab-a-step-closer-to-lift-off
I did read one article where they quoted Beck as having 30 launches booked, another with 2 years of launches booked and yet another saying they had 30 potential customers.
I doubt all 3 are wrong, there is definitely a pentup demand for these small LVs. Whether there is enough long term demand to sustain the competing LVs in development, remains to been seen.
-
article on the Los Angeles Times:
L.A.-based Rocket Lab to build a satellite launch site in New Zealand
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-rocketlab-satellites-20150805-story.html
Rocket Lab estimates each launch will cost nearly $5 million — a fraction of the average price that aerospace firms pay today to blast a satellite to orbit.
Founded in 2007, Rocket Lab began as a start-up investment led by Chief Executive Peter Beck and other entrepreneurs. The company now has 60 employees between its New Zealand and Los Angeles locations and hopes to expand.
Rocket Lab says it can keep launch costs low by targeting small satellites weighing less than 220 pounds. Normally, these smaller satellites have to coordinate their launches, hitchhiking on a rocket with larger satellites, but Rocket Lab believes it has found a niche in the satellite market.
Picture Credit: Founded in 2007, Rocket Lab began as a start-up led by CEO Peter Beck, above. The company now has 60 employees in New Zealand and L.A. (Phil Walter / Getty Images)
-
article on the Los Angeles Times:
L.A.-based Rocket Lab to build a satellite launch site in New Zealand
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-rocketlab-satellites-20150805-story.html
Rocket Lab estimates each launch will cost nearly $5 million — a fraction of the average price that aerospace firms pay today to blast a satellite to orbit.
Founded in 2007, Rocket Lab began as a start-up investment led by Chief Executive Peter Beck and other entrepreneurs. The company now has 60 employees between its New Zealand and Los Angeles locations and hopes to expand.
Rocket Lab says it can keep launch costs low by targeting small satellites weighing less than 220 pounds. Normally, these smaller satellites have to coordinate their launches, hitchhiking on a rocket with larger satellites, but Rocket Lab believes it has found a niche in the satellite market.
Picture Credit: Founded in 2007, Rocket Lab began as a start-up led by CEO Peter Beck, above. The company now has 60 employees in New Zealand and L.A. (Phil Walter / Getty Images)
"We are also always looking for new ways to make our products more affordable and dependable," Kramer added. "Rocket Lab's Electron rocket could allow for low-cost flight testing of our technologies."
Having LM as partner can only help if Rocketlab decide to follow up the Electron with a RLV. Unfortunately these small hitech companies have a habit of being swallowed up by larger companies after their technology and customer base. I've already experienced this once with a local hitech company, the US buyers cherry picked the technology they were after and sold off the rest of business.
-
Rocketlab have added a section to their website (http://book.rocketlabusa.com/) for booking cubesat slots, which also gives some general info on future flight plans.
-As of today there are 28 flights listed, with the first in Q3 2016 and leading up to Q2 2019
-All flights listed are to a 500km sun sync orbit or a 45 degree LEO; none of the low-inclination flights that would require US facilities
-All or most flights include a standard cubesat deployment system with 24 3U pods and 8 1U pods
-Despite the large number of deployers, all current flights are at 15%, 65%, 71%, or 100% booked with no other values; repeated block buys?
-Prices are given as $70-80,000 for a 1U pod, and $200-250,000 for a 3U pod, depending on orbit and date of launch
-
Another article on this online booking.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/70995652/rocket-lab-satellite-launches-filling-up-fast
They are still holding to end of 2015 for first launch. Doesn't leave much time to get their pad build, still waiting on building permits etc.
-
Another article on this online booking.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/70995652/rocket-lab-satellite-launches-filling-up-fast
They are still holding to end of 2015 for first launch. Doesn't leave much time to get their pad build, still waiting on building permits etc.
If they haven't firmly settled on a launch site yet, nor started construction - then yeah, it ain't happening this year.
-
If they haven't firmly settled on a launch site yet, nor started construction - then yeah, it ain't happening this year.
Hmm.. I wouldn't be so sure. This isn't LC-39 we're talking about here - it's more "slightly larger than a kiddie toy".
From the preliminary renders around, all they're looking at is a concrete pad with a semi-portable launch tower and a site shed or two nearby. Given their first flight is a one-off test, fuel loading is most likely straight off the back of a truck. That's not rocket science.. :)
-
And an LC-39C type pad could be built fairly quickly as well. Of course NASA had existing structure to pipe from when they built theirs, but it was still built quite fast!
-
A lot of the infrastructure can be built off site and dropped into place. The build's shell shouldn't take to long to assemble.
-
Rocketlab considering another launch site on Mahia Peninsula, near Wairoa in North Island.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/AK1508/S00363/rocket-lab-considering-an-additonal-launch-site-in-wairoa.htm
-
Peter Beck on ask me anything radio show. Not sure if this has aired yet.
http://www.nbr.co.nz/ask-peter-beck
-
Here's Wairoa on the map. Good for launches to the South. I'm not so sure to the East, as the flightpath is over land.
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-39.035173,177.4180311,9z
-
Here's Wairoa on the map. Good for launches to the South. I'm not so sure to the East, as the flightpath is over land.
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-39.035173,177.4180311,9z
FWIW, it's a really, really nice part of the world..
-
Here's Wairoa on the map. Good for launches to the South. I'm not so sure to the East, as the flightpath is over land.
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-39.035173,177.4180311,9z
The considered launch site is not directly at Wairoa, but about 20 km to the east at Onenui Station, on the southern tip of Mahia peninsula, which has no limitations to the east
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-39.2144245,177.837189,10.75z
-
An interview with the wairoa mayor about Rocketlab setting up a launch site in wairoa
http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/afternoons/audio/201767483/wairoa,-gateway-to-the-galaxy
-
RocketLab presentation from June SPRSA conference (https://www.sprsa.org/17th-annual-small-payload-rideshare-symposium/program)
https://www.sprsa.org/sites/default/files/conference-presentation/Schneider-Rocket%20Lab%20general%20introduction%20%28reduced%20video%29.pptx
Nothing too new, but pretty.
If you check the conference presentations page, you'll see Interorbitals and FireFly right next to this, too.
( whoops that attachment is huge, didnt notice )
-
One slide had 400kg to LEO and 100kg to SSO. This is the first LEO payload spec I've seen. At $12,500/kg to LEO it is comparable to ULA and is not bad for small dedicated LV.
Once Virgin and Firefly start flying I would expect Rocket lab to reduce their prices.
-
One slide had 400kg to LEO and 100kg to SSO. This is the first LEO payload spec I've seen. At $12,500/kg to LEO it is comparable to ULA and is not bad for small dedicated LV.
Once Virgin and Firefly start flying I would expect Rocket lab to reduce their prices.
Think it was mentioned in another article but iirc the article mentioned Firefly as well and 99% of space reporting can't be trusted with fiddly details so I didn't trust it.
Interesting, their web page now says 150 kg to 500 km SSO.
-
This article shows how they sell payload slots. 8 x 1U at $80K + 24 x 3U at 250K per launch $6.64M total.
Of course you can buy the whole LV for $4.9M, probably lot less if you are buying a few LVs.
http://www.nanalyze.com/2015/09/rocket-lab-carbon-fiber-rockets-powered-by-3d-printing/
-
Interesting article..
Of interest to me was the statements "at least 100 launches per year" and "the first 30 rocket payloads being fully booked" - which would imply that (a) they already have several rockets under construction and (b) plans to ramp up to around 2 launches per week! Isn't that a lot to promise for a vehicle that has not yet flown?!?
-
Using high performance Lithium Polymer batteries to drive its turbo-pumps..
This has always looked somewhat puzzling. Why would they use LiPO when primary lithium batteries could deliver better specific energy and power ?
Could be just easy availability of off the shelf power electronics
-
This has always looked somewhat puzzling. Why would they use LiPO when primary lithium batteries could deliver better specific energy and power ?
Could be just easy availability of off the shelf power electronics
LiPO probably offers the best compromise in peak current capacity.
Plus they can use off the shelf batteries from the EV market vs using custom built cells.
Even on an expendable LV the ability to recharge the batteries is still useful in that the vehicle can be recharged if the launch is delayed or aborted.
-
LiPO probably offers the best compromise in peak current capacity.
Definitely not, lipos generally cant be discharged as high as even LiFEPo4 cells - which come in at slightly less specific energy. And i haven't worked too much with primary lithium cells in large stacks but you should be able to draw very high pulse currents from LiSO2 and LiSOCl2 packs.
Plus they can use off the shelf batteries from the EV market vs using custom built cells.
Even on an expendable LV the ability to recharge the batteries is still useful in that the vehicle can be recharged if the launch is delayed or aborted.
Off the shelf electronics, battery packs and ability to re-charge for testing and delays is probably the real deciding factor.
EDIT: what i wrote above is bogus, that was true for early cobalt oxide cathode pouch cells, but not anymore. There are various polymer electrolyte cells with different cathodes around these days, i have lost track.
-
So Moon Express now claims they booked a ride with RocketLab.
http://www.geekwire.com/2015/moon-express-and-rocket-lab-make-deal-for-lunar-landings-in-2017/
Which is odd, as RocketLab lists these as they payload specs on their web page
How do you get 150kg from SSO to the surface of the moon ..
-
So Moon Express now claims they booked a ride with RocketLab.
http://www.geekwire.com/2015/moon-express-and-rocket-lab-make-deal-for-lunar-landings-in-2017/
Which is odd, as RocketLab lists these as they payload specs on their web page
How do you get 150kg from SSO to the surface of the moon ..
A small lander, some solar panels, ion propulsion to get to LLO. The alternative would be to try to engineer a tiny hydrolox stage but that seems like madness. You'd still need a storable propellant descent and landing stage.
-
How do you get 150kg from SSO to the surface of the moon ..
A small lander, some solar panels, ion propulsion to get to LLO.
They dont do ion propulsion, last they talked about hydrogen peroxide prop. LADEE weighed 400kg at launch and orbited the moon, but it was boosted by Minotaur V
-
"In an Oct. 1 interview, Bob Richards, co-founder and chief executive of Moon Express, said that Electron will be able to send “something under” 10 kilograms to the surface of the moon. “That’s good for our purposes in our first missions,” he said. “Call it an entry-level lunar mission.” - See more at: http://spacenews.com/moon-express-buys-rocket-lab-launches-for-lunar-missions/#sthash.pP71rYIo.dpuf "
-
So Moon Express now claims they booked a ride with RocketLab.
http://www.geekwire.com/2015/moon-express-and-rocket-lab-make-deal-for-lunar-landings-in-2017/
Which is odd, as RocketLab lists these as they payload specs on their web page
How do you get 150kg from SSO to the surface of the moon ..
Launching due east will buy them a few more kg to LEO. The difference between SSO and low inclination LEO is often a good amount. For the Delta II 7320 the difference is 2,865 kg to LEO and 1,651 to SSO. No clue what the difference is for the Electron. I doubt it alone can explain their quotes performance to the lunar surface.
-
This is a shrunk MX1 (600kg) which has been designed specifically for Electron and its competing LVs.
Besides being a lander it also space craft eg lunar orbiter and can also act as a 3rd stage.
MoonExpress could actually make money on the XPrize, $25M (-$5M for LV) would go along way to paying for MX development and build costs.
-
This is a shrunk MX1 (600kg) which has been designed specifically for Electron and its competing LVs.
Its 200kg according to Alan Boyle. And it's not designed to do anything else than meet the X-Prize launch contract deadline to get the extension. Moon Express found a way to get a 'launch contract'
-
So Moon Express now claims they booked a ride with RocketLab.
http://www.geekwire.com/2015/moon-express-and-rocket-lab-make-deal-for-lunar-landings-in-2017/
Which is odd, as RocketLab lists these as they payload specs on their web page
How do you get 150kg from SSO to the surface of the moon ..
"In an Oct. 1 interview, Bob Richards, co-founder and chief executive of Moon Express, said that Electron will be able to send “something under” 10 kilograms to the surface of the moon. “That’s good for our purposes in our first missions,” he said. “Call it an entry-level lunar mission.” - See more at: http://spacenews.com/moon-express-buys-rocket-lab-launches-for-lunar-missions/#sthash.pP71rYIo.dpuf "
Since the Electron have a 120 cm external diameter. Maybe a micro lander based on a 27 U cubesat.
Moon Express is not carrying a rover. Instead they will land, take a video clip and hopped at least 500 meters from landing point to claim the GLXP prize. ::)
-
"In an Oct. 1 interview, Bob Richards, co-founder and chief executive of Moon Express, said that Electron will be able to send “something under” 10 kilograms to the surface of the moon.
Zero is something under 10.
-
Being the first scheduled to launch of the new small LVs has paid off for RocketLab. MoonExpress specifically design this lander for Electron. If Firefly was flying first the lander would have been designed for larger Alpha and may have been to small for Electron.
This combination of low cost dedicated LV and lander maybe a winner for MoonExpress. Besides their XPrize mission which may turn a profit given low launch costs, they have another two missions for customers. They have allowed themselves 3 attempts at XPrize, if successful on 1st the other 2 booked launches will be for customers.
-
Celestis will apparently include a capsule with ashes on one of these lunar missions, as today a new flight appeared in their schedule
Mission Scheduled Launch Date Service Launch Site
Tribute Flight November 6, 2015 Earth Rise Spaceport America, New Mexico
Heritage Flight Q4 2015 Earth Orbit Cape Canaveral, Florida
Earth Rise 08 Q2 2016 Earth Rise Spaceport America, New Mexico
Earth Orbit 08 Q3 2016 Earth Orbit Cape Canaveral, Florida
Earth Rise 09 Q2 2017 Earth Rise Spaceport America, New Mexico
Earth Orbit 09 Q3 2017 Earth Orbit Cape Canaveral, Florida
Voyager 01* Q3 2017 Voyager Cape Canaveral, Florida
Luna 02 Q4 2017 Luna Cape Canaveral, Florida or New Zealand
http://www.celestis.com/manifest.asp
-
This is a shrunk MX1 (600kg) which has been designed specifically for Electron and its competing LVs.
Besides being a lander it also space craft eg lunar orbiter and can also act as a 3rd stage.
MoonExpress could actually make money on the XPrize, $25M (-$5M for LV) would go along way to paying for MX development and build costs.
Where did you hear about shrinking the MX1 down ?
Would like to watch and follow this.
-
This is a shrunk MX1 (600kg) which has been designed specifically for Electron and its competing LVs.
Besides being a lander it also space craft eg lunar orbiter and can also act as a 3rd stage.
MoonExpress could actually make money on the XPrize, $25M (-$5M for LV) would go along way to paying for MX development and build costs.
Where did you hear about shrinking the MX1 down ?
Would like to watch and follow this.
It's implied by the fact that we know Electron can't carry the mass of the originally-planned 600 kg MX-1.
It's also explicitly stated in the article linked to a few posts back:
Meanwhile, Silicon Valley-based Moon Express is building and testing versions of its MX-1 lander – which Richards said is being scaled down to a mass of 200 kilograms (440 pounds), including fuel.
http://www.geekwire.com/2015/moon-express-and-rocket-lab-make-deal-for-lunar-landings-in-2017/
-
This is a shrunk MX1 (600kg) which has been designed specifically for Electron and its competing LVs.
Its 200kg according to Alan Boyle. And it's not designed to do anything else than meet the X-Prize launch contract deadline to get the extension. Moon Express found a way to get a 'launch contract'
As i was saying:
http://spaceref.biz/commercial-space/moon-express-launch-contract-to-be-verified-by-google-lunar-xprize.html
Yesterday Moon Express became the first Google Lunar XPRIZE participant to sign a launch contract with a launch service provider, albeit one who has yet to launch a rocket.
...
Should the Google Lunar XPRIZE verify the contract, then the competition deadline will be extended beyond the current deadline of December 31st of this year to the end of 2017. However, any other team who wish to remain in the competition would have to announce and have their contract verified by December 31st, 2016.
In other news, anyone here know any other X-prize teams that need a ride for the extension ? I have one available for a low price
-
Here are two more articles on it. We have name for it MX-1E (E for Electron??).
Made up of 2 small (identical??) landers first one acts as booster to get it out of LEO.
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/01/moon-express-rockets-closer-to-planned-lunar-landing.html
http://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/nzs-rocket-lab-signs-contract-company-planning-moonshots-2017
I posted this on MoonExpress thread, trying stop Rocket lab becoming about MX-1E. Think carefully about thread you use to reply.
-
Here are two more articles on it. We have name for it MX-1E (E for Electron??).
Made up of 2 small (identical??) landers first one acts as booster to get it out of LEO.
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/01/moon-express-rockets-closer-to-planned-lunar-landing.html
http://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/nzs-rocket-lab-signs-contract-company-planning-moonshots-2017
I posted this on MoonExpress thread, trying stop Rocket lab becoming about MX-1E. Think carefully about thread you use to reply.
"Moon Express wants to launch two moonshots in 2017 using one of Rocket Lab's low-cost Electron Rockets, with a third at a later date."
'Rocket Lab’s manifest in 2017 and has contracted for a third launch at a time to be determined, with options for a fourth and fifth launch. The launches would accommodate Moon Express’ commercial payloads – and also give the venture more than one crack at winning the X Prize.
“Hopefully we nail it on the first time,” Richards said. “But as you know, space is hard.”
Looking like RocketLab is being operated by some serious management. The launch market is also taking them seriously.
-
Here are two more articles on it. We have name for it MX-1E (E for Electron??).
Made up of 2 small (identical??) landers first one acts as booster to get it out of LEO.
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/01/moon-express-rockets-closer-to-planned-lunar-landing.html
http://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/nzs-rocket-lab-signs-contract-company-planning-moonshots-2017
I posted this on MoonExpress thread, trying stop Rocket lab becoming about MX-1E. Think carefully about thread you use to reply.
"Moon Express wants to launch two moonshots in 2017 using one of Rocket Lab's low-cost Electron Rockets, with a third at a later date."
'Rocket Lab’s manifest in 2017 and has contracted for a third launch at a time to be determined, with options for a fourth and fifth launch. The launches would accommodate Moon Express’ commercial payloads – and also give the venture more than one crack at winning the X Prize.
“Hopefully we nail it on the first time,” Richards said. “But as you know, space is hard.”
Looking like RocketLab is being operated by some serious management. The launch market is also taking them seriously.
This contract doesn't give evidence of either of these things.
Google Lunar X-Prize contestants are desperately scrambling right now. None of their announced plans for launches have been materializing. The original deadline to win was 2014. All the contestants were clearly going to fail to meet that deadline, so it was extended to the end of 2015. And it's still clear nobody is going to meet the extended deadline. So the deadline is being extended again, by two more years, but only if the contestants can show an actual launch contract by the end of 2015.
So, you have contestants who have been working on their projects for years and who are going to die in a few months unless they can produce a launch contract.
On the other hand, you have RocketLab, who has never launched anything and little evidence they have any customers. So RocketLab is clearly also in desperate need of a customer to show off.
It's no surprise that a desperate would-be customer would sign with a desperate would-be launch provider. Neither of them has anything to lose, and a lot to gain, just by signing the contract, even if there's little chance Moon Express can actually pay for the launch and little chance RocketLab can actually execute the launch.
So, I don't think this demonstrates "serious management" on the part of RocketLab or that the "launch market" is taking them seriously.
-
Here is list of small LVs currently flying and in development. Courtesy of Parabolic arc.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2015/10/04/updated-list-smallsat-launch-vehicles/#more-56525
-
Here are two more articles on it. We have name for it MX-1E (E for Electron??).
Made up of 2 small (identical??) landers first one acts as booster to get it out of LEO.
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/01/moon-express-rockets-closer-to-planned-lunar-landing.html
http://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/nzs-rocket-lab-signs-contract-company-planning-moonshots-2017
I posted this on MoonExpress thread, trying stop Rocket lab becoming about MX-1E. Think carefully about thread you use to reply.
"Moon Express wants to launch two moonshots in 2017 using one of Rocket Lab's low-cost Electron Rockets, with a third at a later date."
'Rocket Lab’s manifest in 2017 and has contracted for a third launch at a time to be determined, with options for a fourth and fifth launch. The launches would accommodate Moon Express’ commercial payloads – and also give the venture more than one crack at winning the X Prize.
“Hopefully we nail it on the first time,” Richards said. “But as you know, space is hard.”
Looking like RocketLab is being operated by some serious management. The launch market is also taking them seriously.
This contract doesn't give evidence of either of these things.
Google Lunar X-Prize contestants are desperately scrambling right now. None of their announced plans for launches have been materializing. The original deadline to win was 2014. All the contestants were clearly going to fail to meet that deadline, so it was extended to the end of 2015. And it's still clear nobody is going to meet the extended deadline. So the deadline is being extended again, by two more years, but only if the contestants can show an actual launch contract by the end of 2015.
So, you have contestants who have been working on their projects for years and who are going to die in a few months unless they can produce a launch contract.
On the other hand, you have RocketLab, who has never launched anything and little evidence they have any customers. So RocketLab is clearly also in desperate need of a customer to show off.
It's no surprise that a desperate would-be customer would sign with a desperate would-be launch provider. Neither of them has anything to lose, and a lot to gain, just by signing the contract, even if there's little chance Moon Express can actually pay for the launch and little chance RocketLab can actually execute the launch.
So, I don't think this demonstrates "serious management" on the part of RocketLab or that the "launch market" is taking them seriously.
I agree that this contract demonstrates little, however, other recent events around Rocket Lab, the hardware they've been able the show, and feedback and support from people and organizations they've been dealing with, means I've no doubt they're serious and will be getting PL's into orbit within 2 years.
-
Making a "contract" between two companies is a serious matter.
False.
There's a vast range of different kinds of contracts between companies. Some are just for show, so they can issue a joint press release. I've seen it first hand while working at a company doing exactly this.
It gets into legal matters and that most times requires attorney's fees.
But not very high attorneys' fees.
So funds for legal should have been expended. Further, most companies would require some sort of deposit, even its a "good faith" deposit.
No, there are lots of agreements signed between companies with no deposit involved. These agreements are followed by announcements about the agreements. The point of the contract is to announce it.
I see this happen all the time between start-up tech companies.
Unless they announce the terms, we have no way of knowing the terms of this contract. To assume there is likely to be a deposit is not logical.
-
From NASAWATCH: "Here's what Chanda Gonzales, Senior Director, Google Lunar XPRIZE said on the contract issue "Our decision is based on a holistic assessment of whether the launch contract is genuine, whether there are any legal issues that might pop up, whether there are any obvious non-compliances with the rules, and whether a substantial commitment was made by both the team and the launch provider (e.g. non-refundable deposit of some certain minimum value)." "
My bold.
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2015/10/google-lunar-x-4.html
-
From NASAWATCH: "Here's what Chanda Gonzales, Senior Director, Google Lunar XPRIZE said on the contract issue "Our decision is based on a holistic assessment of whether the launch contract is genuine, whether there are any legal issues that might pop up, whether there are any obvious non-compliances with the rules, and whether a substantial commitment was made by both the team and the launch provider (e.g. non-refundable deposit of some certain minimum value)." "
My bold.
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2015/10/google-lunar-x-4.html
And we haven't heard yet what that decision is.
-
From NASAWATCH: "Here's what Chanda Gonzales, Senior Director, Google Lunar XPRIZE said on the contract issue "Our decision is based on a holistic assessment of whether the launch contract is genuine, whether there are any legal issues that might pop up, whether there are any obvious non-compliances with the rules, and whether a substantial commitment was made by both the team and the launch provider (e.g. non-refundable deposit of some certain minimum value)." "
My bold.
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2015/10/google-lunar-x-4.html
And we haven't heard yet what that decision is.
Note that now SpaceIL, another Google Lunar X-Prize competitor, has bought a slot on a rideshare on a Falcon 9, and the contest organizers have certified SpaceIL as the "first and only" team to have an approved launch contract:
“We are proud to officially confirm receipt and verification of SpaceIL’s launch contract, positioning them as the first and only Google Lunar XPRIZE team to demonstrate this important achievement, thus far,” said Bob Weiss, vice chairman and president of XPRIZE. “The magnitude of this achievement cannot be overstated, representing an unprecedented and monumental commitment for a privately-funded organization, and kicks off an exciting phase of the competition in which the other 15 teams now have until the end of 2016 to produce their own verified launch contracts.
So why hasn't the X-Prize organization approved the Moon Express contract? At this point, it's looking like the X-Prize people at least have some doubts and at worst think the Moon Express contract doesn't meet their standards for being a "real" launch contract.
-
Is there a reason for your personal vendetta against RocketLab or are you just bored?
-
Is there a reason for your personal vendetta against RocketLab or are you just bored?
There's no personal vendetta.
-
Is there a reason for your personal vendetta against RocketLab or are you just bored?
There's no personal vendetta.
Must be bored then.. :D
FWIW, I hear on the grapevine that they're still busily working away, building stuff, buying stuff, getting set up and still aiming for a first launch by the end of the year.
-
Is there a reason for your personal vendetta against RocketLab or are you just bored?
There's no personal vendetta.
Must be bored then.. :D
Every person on this forum probably fits that definition of bored, most certainly including QuantumG and yourself. :D
He's calling it like he sees it. I think he's substantially right. But hey, just because it's accurate to say a horse is a 50-1 longshot doesn't mean we can't pull for it and hope it wins.
-
not sure if anyone posted this yet......
https://news.yahoo.com/video/firm-uses-3-d-printed-225000034.html
decent video ;)
NSF Linkage to the engine
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34421.msg1359569#msg1359569
-
Is there a reason for your personal vendetta against RocketLab or are you just bored?
There's no personal vendetta.
Must be bored then.. :D
Every person on this forum probably fits that definition of bored, most certainly including QuantumG and yourself. :D
He's calling it like he sees it. I think he's substantially right. But hey, just because it's accurate to say a horse is a 50-1 longshot doesn't mean we can't pull for it and hope it wins.
Yeah, exactly. RocketLab is a longshot, but it has a shot. It has a far better chance than most start-up space companies. I'd be thrilled to see them succeed.
But that doesn't mean people should shy away from pointing out the negatives. The companies themselves only point out the most positive versions of things in their public statements. It's up to the rest of us to give those statements a reality check.
-
Yeah, exactly. RocketLab is a longshot, but it has a shot. It has a far better chance than most start-up space companies. I'd be thrilled to see them succeed.
But that doesn't mean people should shy away from pointing out the negatives. The companies themselves only point out the most positive versions of things in their public statements. It's up to the rest of us to give those statements a reality check.
You (or at least I) often get a vibe from these start-ups after they've been working at their systems for a few years, things are either happening and the company Heads seem focused, or, as with Virgin Galactic, there seems to be an endless series of problems and hiccups, and the Heads need to try to talk things up - often they actually appear to be trying to talk themselves into being positive.
The vibe I get from Rocket Lab is that they've got the backing they need, things are going well, they're focused, what they have been doing is working, they mean what they say, and they aren't just blowing smoke like so many others.
I give them a 90% chance of a successful launch within 6 months. My other hot tip is Blue Origin.
-
You (or at least I) often get a vibe from these start-ups after they've been working at their systems for a few years, things are either happening and the company Heads seem focused, or, as with Virgin Galactic, there seems to be an endless series of problems and hiccups, and the Heads need to try to talk things up - often they actually appear to be trying to talk themselves into being positive.
In some ways VG's goals are more limited, but in others much more ambitious.
Actually something similar could be said of Blue as well, given their fondness for discretion.
The vibe I get from Rocket Lab is that they've got the backing they need, things are going well, they're focused, what they have been doing is working, they mean what they say, and they aren't just blowing smoke like so many others.
I saw the video you referenced. So the key facts (as far as there are any mentioned)
Turbo pump drive motor is "Size of soda can" and generates 50Hp or 37700W of power.
Carries "1 Mega Watt" of batteries.
Watts are a unit of power, energy per unit time. Joules are a unit of energy. If he meant Joules that's about 26secs of running time driving that motor.
Is this guy the CEO?
I give them a 90% chance of a successful launch within 6 months. My other hot tip is Blue Origin.
That's neat. Link a rank outsider with a front runner to suggest they are both front runners.
Well this
http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/missions/commercial/rocket-lab-electron-rutherford-peter-beck-started-first-place/
says they're aiming for late December 2015. We'll see.
As for what's 3d printed on this engine, the video showed nothing about that. TBH on this scale I'd probably go CNC and use the laser deposition to make expendable formers for lost wax casting. May have done this, may not. But turbo pumps scale down badly and the claimed thrust 4600lbs is near the top of the reasonable range for piston pumps, according to John Whitehead's team at Livermore.
Rocket Lab are claiming electron deposition of metal for the chamber. That's something LM have trialed through a sub contractor. IIRC such suppliers are very few and very far between. It is a long way from mainstream 3d printing.
IOW very expensive. You're going to need phenomenal performance benefits or a very good deal on bulk orders to make that a good design decision. :(
I note they have made a sounding rocket launch. It'd be interesting to see if that was a liquid fueled vehicle of basic design to this rocket or completely different tech. If the same then they've already retired significant risk.
They certainly talk a very good game and (unlike Orbital) they are not at the mercy of a supplier/partner for a key part of their stages, so should not be subject to 100% price rises.
Let's see what happens in December.
-
You (or at least I) often get a vibe from these start-ups after they've been working at their systems for a few years, things are either happening and the company Heads seem focused, or, as with Virgin Galactic, there seems to be an endless series of problems and hiccups, and the Heads need to try to talk things up - often they actually appear to be trying to talk themselves into being positive.
In some ways VG's goals are more limited, but in others much more ambitious.
Actually something similar could be said of Blue as well, given their fondness for discretion.
The vibe I get from Rocket Lab is that they've got the backing they need, things are going well, they're focused, what they have been doing is working, they mean what they say, and they aren't just blowing smoke like so many others.
I saw the video you referenced. So the key facts (as far as there are any mentioned)
Turbo pump drive motor is "Size of soda can" and generates 50Hp or 37700W of power.
Carries "1 Mega Watt" of batteries.
Watts are a unit of power, energy per unit time. Joules are a unit of energy. If he meant Joules that's about 26secs of running time driving that motor.
Is this guy the CEO?
I give them a 90% chance of a successful launch within 6 months. My other hot tip is Blue Origin.
That's neat. Link a rank outsider with a front runner to suggest they are both front runners.
Well this
http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/missions/commercial/rocket-lab-electron-rutherford-peter-beck-started-first-place/
says they're aiming for late December 2015. We'll see.
As for what's 3d printed on this engine, the video showed nothing about that. TBH on this scale I'd probably go CNC and use the laser deposition to make expendable formers for lost wax casting. May have done this, may not. But turbo pumps scale down badly and the claimed thrust 4600lbs is near the top of the reasonable range for piston pumps, according to John Whitehead's team at Livermore.
Rocket Lab are claiming electron deposition of metal for the chamber. That's something LM have trialed through a sub contractor. IIRC such suppliers are very few and very far between. It is a long way from mainstream 3d printing.
IOW very expensive. You're going to need phenomenal performance benefits or a very good deal on bulk orders to make that a good design decision. :(
I note they have made a sounding rocket launch. It'd be interesting to see if that was a liquid fueled vehicle of basic design to this rocket or completely different tech. If the same then they've already retired significant risk.
They certainly talk a very good game and (unlike Orbital) they are not at the mercy of a supplier/partner for a key part of their stages, so should not be subject to 100% price rises.
Let's see what happens in December.
The "one megawatt" thing had me puzzled, I think he's referring to the total power available from the batteries of all the engines, about 3 times the power that's theoretically required.
I didn't reference a video.
"Rocket Lab are claiming electron deposition of metal for the chamber." No, they're using EBM.
"But turbo pumps scale down badly"
They're using a battery powered rotodynamic pump, the bit in a turbo pump that scales badly is the turbine, and controlling it with adequate precision.
"and the claimed thrust 4600lbs is near the top of the reasonable range for piston pumps, according to John Whitehead's team at Livermore. "
I'm not sure what you're talking about there, they're not using piston pumps.
-
I was wondering about the weight of the batteries to power the pumps, using the 342kw power demand for the 9 first stage engines and assuming a first stage burn of 150s, I get a required capacity of 500,000,000J, at 0.5mJ/kg that's a first stage battery weight of 100kg.
-
You (or at least I) often get a vibe from these start-ups after they've been working at their systems for a few years, things are either happening and the company Heads seem focused, or, as with Virgin Galactic, there seems to be an endless series of problems and hiccups, and the Heads need to try to talk things up - often they actually appear to be trying to talk themselves into being positive.
The vibe I get from Rocket Lab is that they've got the backing they need, things are going well, they're focused, what they have been doing is working, they mean what they say, and they aren't just blowing smoke like so many others.
I give them a 90% chance of a successful launch within 6 months. My other hot tip is Blue Origin.
RocketLab has been working on their product in a very direct way. They are taking a big chance with their chosen propulsion. Though electric pumps are easy to test out. If there were any show stoppers they seem like they could pivot to another approach. It can be hard to know when what you've been working on for years just won't work versus putting a bit more effort in and getting it to work. One of VG's main problems is that they are more focused on the methods and technology they started with than the goal they started with. Whenever they get someone to space it will involve air launch, feathering, and a hybrid engine. VG hasn't been receptive to other ideas which might accomplish their goals better.
-
RocketLab started work in 2007 and that year is very interesting for many reasons. SpaceX started in 2006, BlueO 2005 so each company runs in their own timeline/path.
SpaceX was founded in 2002. Blue Origin was founded in 2000.
The first Falcon 1 launch attempt was in 2006 and the first Blue Origin flight was 2005, so maybe that's what's confusing you. Those first launch dates shouldn't be compared with the founding date of RocketLab. The first launch date for RocketLab hasn't even occurred yet.
-
There has been nothing on the web about Rocket lab beginning construction on pad
-
RocketLab started work in 2007 and that year is very interesting for many reasons. SpaceX started in 2006, BlueO 2005 so each company runs in their own timeline/path.
SpaceX was founded in 2002. Blue Origin was founded in 2000.
The first Falcon 1 launch attempt was in 2006 and the first Blue Origin flight was 2005, so maybe that's what's confusing you. Those first launch dates shouldn't be compared with the founding date of RocketLab. The first launch date for RocketLab hasn't even occurred yet.
BO is in testing.
SpaceX isn't launching anything, and the New F9 has never launched what's your point?
-
I was wondering about the weight of the batteries to power the pumps, using the 342kw power demand for the 9 first stage engines and assuming a first stage burn of 150s, I get a required capacity of 500,000,000J, at 0.5mJ/kg that's a first stage battery weight of 100kg.
You are assuming standard~ish 150wh/kg or so, which is a fair guess. However, apparently one can do better these days
http://www.totalbatteryconsulting.com/industry-reports/Tesla-report/Extract-from-the-Tesla-battery-report.pdf
-
You are assuming standard~ish 150wh/kg or so, which is a fair guess. However, apparently one can do better these days
Don't forget that you need to reach a certain power density as well. The need for 1MW power output has come up in a couple quotes. Some of the higher energy density cells can't be discharged at a high enough rate to be drained in ~3 minutes.
Can we come up with an estimate of max discharge rate on Tesla's 18650 cells based on "ludicrous mode" in the model P90D? Power output is stated to be 762 hp == 568kW, and pack voltage is apparently 375V, giving current of at least 1515A to allow for losses. But, dividing the 90kWh by 568kW gives 9.5 minutes. We need 76% more power than that (1.76x) which gives 5.4 minutes, still almost 2x more than we need. Also this pack weighs 450kg but a lot of that is cooling and structure.
-
The main assumption here is the pump required power. For a 300 kw pump you'll need ~12 kw/h pack over 150 seconds. I'm not sure Electron is nearly big enough to require 300kw of pumping power though.
And discharge rates really are not the limiting issue here, if you don't care about battery longevity, which you don't for an expendable vehicle, you can draw crazy rates.
-
The main assumption here is the pump required power. For a 300 kw pump you'll need ~12 kw/h pack over 150 seconds. I'm not sure Electron is nearly big enough to require 300kw of pumping power though.
And discharge rates really are not the limiting issue here, if you don't care about battery longevity, which you don't for an expendable vehicle, you can draw crazy rates.
In the video he says "50 horsepower" which is 37kW. Times 9 engines that's 333kW. Not clear whether this is just one pump or both. It's quite clear from the images that it has separate pumps and motors for fuel and oxidizer.
I see your point about the discharge rate. You could qualify the cells for a rate that allows a couple of tests, even. But you don't need to last hundreds of cycles.
-
I was wondering about the weight of the batteries to power the pumps, using the 342kw power demand for the 9 first stage engines and assuming a first stage burn of 150s, I get a required capacity of 500,000,000J, at 0.5mJ/kg that's a first stage battery weight of 100kg.
I'm sorry, but you probably meant 0.5MJ/kg, right? The above mentioned Panasonic cells have 0.84MJ/kg.
-
BTW, RocketLab is not the only one choosing an electric pump for a smallsat launcher. If you click through the builders on this thread :
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38583.0
You'll find a few others. Ventions for example, who is prototyping for ALASA and also providing engineering services/components to some others
http://ventions.com/menu/
I doubt that the electric pumps will scale well to big first stage engines, and the optimization would go towards as short engine burns as possible
-
I was wondering about the weight of the batteries to power the pumps, using the 342kw power demand for the 9 first stage engines and assuming a first stage burn of 150s, I get a required capacity of 500,000,000J, at 0.5mJ/kg that's a first stage battery weight of 100kg.
I'm sorry, but you probably meant 0.5MJ/kg, right? The above mentioned Panasonic cells have 0.84MJ/kg.
Yeah, and having a google, some claim just over 1MJ/kg for lithium–iron disulfide and lithium–manganese dioxide the latter suitable for high drain devices, so 50kg for 1st stage batteries, 5.5kg each motor.
-
I doubt that the electric pumps will scale well to big first stage engines, and the optimization would go towards as short engine burns as possible
Yes, electric pumps are meant to solve the problem that the gas turbine driving a conventional turbopump doesn't scale down to smaller sizes well. Also the electric motor is significantly easier to design and build than a gas turbine.
Also, as the Rocketlabs guy said, this reduces throttle and mixture control to "a software problem". You could reduce the pump power needed by throttling back later in flight just to the point where you take full advantage of the nozzle's expansion ratio, which would maximise Isp. If the pump is more efficient with lower output pressure, this could reduce the overall energy requirement.
-
Did the R-1 suborbital vehicle they launched in 2009 use a pumped liquid propellant engine? How did that engine differ from the current "Rutherford" design? Was it pressure fed?
Also: don't 18 electric motors all spinning at 40,000 rpm as they go through max-q present some reliability challenges? Has RocketLab claimed the Electron would reach orbit if an engine went out?
-
Also: don't 18 electric motors all spinning at 40,000 rpm as they go through max-q present some reliability challenges? Has RocketLab claimed the Electron would reach orbit if an engine went out?
I wouldnt expect that. You get electric motors spinning at half a million RPM
For really high end of this kind of stuff, magnetic bearings and all see
http://www.celeroton.com/en/products/motors.html
Thats obviously at a different scale, and as motors get bigger they normally need to slow down. But 40k rpm at that size should not be a challenge
-
RocketLab started work in 2007 and that year is very interesting for many reasons. SpaceX started in 2006, BlueO 2005 so each company runs in their own timeline/path.
SpaceX was founded in 2002. Blue Origin was founded in 2000.
The first Falcon 1 launch attempt was in 2006 and the first Blue Origin flight was 2005, so maybe that's what's confusing you. Those first launch dates shouldn't be compared with the founding date of RocketLab. The first launch date for RocketLab hasn't even occurred yet.
BO is in testing.
SpaceX isn't launching anything, and the New F9 has never launched what's your point?
My point is that your post is at best misleading and at worst downright wrong.
If someone didn't already know the dates for SpaceX, RocketLab, and Blue Origin, they would think from your post that they all started within two years of one another. That is not correct. By listing a founding date for RocketLab and a first-flight date for SpaceX and Blue Origin, you're giving a misleading impression.
I was correcting your misleading post.
-
RocketLab has taken electron deposition and refined his custom 3D printer for his needs in house. The company has been built RockeLab around the 3D Printer, and not just added a 3D Printer as a tool like other firms. [...]
Is it your impression that a vehicle of this basic design requires 3D printing, i.e. no other manufacturing technology could produce engines that would get the vehicle to orbit? Or is it "solely" a cost issue? (FWIW my impression is that the difficulty of printing a gas-driven turbopump brought them to the electric-driven design, which is the underlying design choice that makes the effort so interesting, rather than the 3D printing per se.)
Only concern is his launch software
Even before launch they should be able to demonstrate "fine control" of the engine thrust on a test stand, yes? Is there an expected date for that milestone?
-
RocketLab has taken electron deposition and refined his custom 3D printer for his needs in house. The company has been built RockeLab around the 3D Printer, and not just added a 3D Printer as a tool like other firms. [...]
Is it your impression that a vehicle of this basic design requires 3D printing, i.e. no other manufacturing technology could produce engines that would get the vehicle to orbit? Or is it "solely" a cost issue? (FWIW my impression is that the difficulty of printing a gas-driven turbopump brought them to the electric-driven design, which is the underlying design choice that makes the effort so interesting, rather than the 3D printing per se.)
They're claiming the main benefit is that they can print an engine in 3 days
Only concern is his launch software
Even before launch they should be able to demonstrate "fine control" of the engine thrust on a test stand, yes? Is there an expected date for that milestone?
They've had 300 test stand firings of the engine.
-
(FWIW my impression is that the difficulty of printing a gas-driven turbopump brought them to the electric-driven design, which is the underlying design choice that makes the effort so interesting, rather than the 3D printing per se.)
MSFC has done that
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/news/releases/2015/successful-nasa-rocket-fuel-pump-tests-pave-way-for-3-d-printed-demonstrator-engine.html
-
Even before launch they should be able to demonstrate "fine control" of the engine thrust on a test stand, yes? Is there an expected date for that milestone?
They've had 300 test stand firings of the engine.
Can you disclose the thrust levels those test stand firings demonstrated? Were all of them at 100% of rated thrust?
-
Even before launch they should be able to demonstrate "fine control" of the engine thrust on a test stand, yes? Is there an expected date for that milestone?
They've had 300 test stand firings of the engine.
Can you disclose the thrust levels those test stand firings demonstrated? Were all of them at 100% of rated thrust?
I assume they did the tests to test the engine, and I'm betting that testing the engine involves putting it to the test.
Are you suspecting that they did tests that were at less than rated thrust so that the engine wouldn't fail the tests?
-
Even before launch they should be able to demonstrate "fine control" of the engine thrust on a test stand, yes? Is there an expected date for that milestone?
They've had 300 test stand firings of the engine.
Can you disclose the thrust levels those test stand firings demonstrated? Were all of them at 100% of rated thrust?
I assume they did the tests to test the engine, and I'm betting that testing the engine involves putting it to the test.
Are you suspecting that they did tests that were at less than rated thrust so that the engine wouldn't fail the tests?
There are reasons for testing at reduced thrust other than just for PR purposes to avoid failing.
They might have had a program where they started at low thrust, for example and gradually increased the thrust. So only the later tests might have been at full thrust.
Or they might not be done testing so they might not have hit full thrust yet.
-
Call me a starry eyed optimist, but as they've been testing the Rutherford engine since 2013 and are still talking about a launch end of 2015, I'm betting that they've run all of tests they consider necessary.
-
300 Engine tests says volumes when combined with 3D printing. See if your "iffy" in some area you can print out 5 different models to test. At this size the cost, and time involved minimal.
Try quoting a thrust chamber on DMLS machine with large enough working envelope ;) I wouldn't call either the cost or time involved exactly minimal - but yeah, it beats traditional methods.
Important to remember though that additive manufacturing techniques cant do all that you'd want - coatings and surface treatments and so on.
-
300 Engine tests says volumes when combined with 3D printing. See if your "iffy" in some area you can print out 5 different models to test. At this size the cost, and time involved minimal.
Try quoting a thrust chamber on DMLS machine with large enough working envelope ;) I wouldn't call either the cost or time involved exactly minimal - but yeah, it beats traditional methods.
Important to remember though that additive manufacturing techniques cant do all that you'd want - coatings and surface treatments and so on.
coatings & surface treatment costs are still there but are also needed in conventional processes (a wash cost wise). On the same hand some of these parts can't be built conventionally.
-
BTW, RocketLab is not the only one choosing an electric pump for a smallsat launcher. If you click through the builders on this thread :
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38583.0
You'll find a few others. Ventions for example, who is prototyping for ALASA and also providing engineering services/components to some others
http://ventions.com/menu/
I doubt that the electric pumps will scale well to big first stage engines, and the optimization would go towards as short engine burns as possible
Why would a short burn be better? You need to pump exactly the same amount of fuel (1 tank full) up the same pressure gradient. So it's the same number of joules in either case. And it might be easier to get the power out of the battery over a longer time interval, favoring longer burns.
-
This Terrestrial Return Vehicle which is design for quick returns of experiments from ISS, will be delivered by ISS cargo vehicles.
https://intuitivemachines.com/news/trv/
Given the size of this vehicle it maybe possible for a small LV eg Electron to deliver it to space. For some experiments it may not even require a ISS visit, just a few hours or days in space.
-
BTW, RocketLab is not the only one choosing an electric pump for a smallsat launcher. If you click through the builders on this thread :
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38583.0
You'll find a few others. Ventions for example, who is prototyping for ALASA and also providing engineering services/components to some others
http://ventions.com/menu/
I doubt that the electric pumps will scale well to big first stage engines, and the optimization would go towards as short engine burns as possible
Why would a short burn be better? You need to pump exactly the same amount of fuel (1 tank full) up the same pressure gradient. So it's the same number of joules in either case. And it might be easier to get the power out of the battery over a longer time interval, favoring longer burns.
Indeed. Higher the current draw the higher the battery self-heating from internal resistance
so more of the stored energy is lost before reaching the pump motors for a given setup.
Optimizing the entire system is an interesting engineering problem crossing many disciplines.
-
NASA Awards Venture Class Launch Services Contracts for CubeSat Satellites
NASA’s Launch Services Program (LSP) has awarded multiple Venture Class Launch Services (VCLS) contracts to provide small satellites (SmallSats) -- also called CubeSats, microsats or nanosatellites -- access to low-Earth orbit.
The three companies selected to provide these new commercial launch capabilities, and the value of their firm fixed-price contracts, are:
• Firefly Space Systems Inc. of Cedar Park, Texas, $5.5 million
• Rocket Lab USA Inc. of Los Angeles, $6.9 million
• Virgin Galactic LLC of Long Beach, California, $4.7 million
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38583.msg1435883#msg1435883
Edit: This seems to have been announced before, back on Sept 30:
http://spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=47906
"VCLS is a Firm-Fixed Price contract for a dedicated launch service for U-Class satellites with NASA having sole responsibility for the payload on the launch vehicle."
That looks like a contracted launch, but without any indication of the date.
-
That looks like a contracted launch, but without any indication of the date.
Rocket Lab Wins $6.95M NASA Launch Contract
Rocket Lab has been awarded a Venture Class Launch Services contract from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The contract, valued at $6.95M, is for the launch of a NASA payload to low-Earth Orbit on one of Rocket Lab’s Electron launch vehicles. NASA’s payload is scheduled to fly on Electron’s fifth flight between late 2016 and early 2017.
http://www.rocketlabusa.com/rocket-lab-wins-6-95m-nasa-launch-contract/
-
NASA Awards Venture Class Launch Services Contracts for CubeSat Satellites
NASA’s Launch Services Program (LSP) has awarded multiple Venture Class Launch Services (VCLS) contracts to provide small satellites (SmallSats) -- also called CubeSats, microsats or nanosatellites -- access to low-Earth orbit.
The three companies selected to provide these new commercial launch capabilities, and the value of their firm fixed-price contracts, are:
• Firefly Space Systems Inc. of Cedar Park, Texas, $5.5 million
• Rocket Lab USA Inc. of Los Angeles, $6.9 million
• Virgin Galactic LLC of Long Beach, California, $4.7 million
So, remembering SpX's Falcon 1 drama, is it now SOP to award multi-million dollar fixed-price contacts to companies who haven't even flown a test article yet??
-
Rocket Lab USA Selected for Venture Class Launches
Published on Oct 14, 2015
Rocket Lab USA, based in Los Angeles, plans to use its carbon-composite Electron rocket to send CubeSats into space. The Electron is powered by Rocket Lab's Rutherford engine, a 3D printed engine that uses batteries to drive its pumps. Electron is designed to loft about 330 pounds to a 310-mile-high, sun-sychronous orbit, so the rocket can a combination of CubeSats or small satellites.
https://youtu.be/yEOCq6KcwXo
-
NASA Awards Venture Class Launch Services Contracts for CubeSat Satellites
NASA’s Launch Services Program (LSP) has awarded multiple Venture Class Launch Services (VCLS) contracts to provide small satellites (SmallSats) -- also called CubeSats, microsats or nanosatellites -- access to low-Earth orbit.
The three companies selected to provide these new commercial launch capabilities, and the value of their firm fixed-price contracts, are:
• Firefly Space Systems Inc. of Cedar Park, Texas, $5.5 million
• Rocket Lab USA Inc. of Los Angeles, $6.9 million
• Virgin Galactic LLC of Long Beach, California, $4.7 million
So, remembering SpX's Falcon 1 drama, is it now SOP to award multi-million dollar fixed-price contacts to companies who haven't even flown a test article yet??
think this is the plan its called "commercial"
;D
-
NASA does have a need for these small LVs. This award is one way to help these companies by giving them some creditability. The new small LV pad at LC39C has also given these companies another pad at a very low cost.
-
The batteries weight already cover the weight of the gas generator and the fuel that it consume?
-
So, remembering SpX's Falcon 1 drama, is it now SOP to award multi-million dollar fixed-price contacts to companies who haven't even flown a test article yet??
think this is the plan its called "commercial"
;D
Listen to the press conference, NASA wont be the first customer by far at least for Electron. Again, as Beck said, they have their initial manifest pretty well filled with other, commercial customers.
-
Nice little article with new info bits & new pics
Space revolution hatching in a New Zealand paddock
http://news.yahoo.com/space-revolution-hatching-zealand-paddock-041207164--finance.html
"The rocket launch range is not just New Zealand's first of any kind, but also the world's first private launch range"
-
Alaska Aerospace to provide range safety for Rocktlab flights.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=47233
-
Nice little article with new info bits & new pics
Space revolution hatching in a New Zealand paddock
http://news.yahoo.com/space-revolution-hatching-zealand-paddock-041207164--finance.html
"The rocket launch range is not just New Zealand's first of any kind, but also the world's first private launch range"
Jean-Patrice Keka would disagree that it's the world's first private launch range.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/one-africans-personal-space-race-turns-vermin-into-astronauts-1446239060
Maybe they should say "the world's first private orbital launch range."
-
Nice little article with new info bits & new pics
Space revolution hatching in a New Zealand paddock
http://news.yahoo.com/space-revolution-hatching-zealand-paddock-041207164--finance.html
"The rocket launch range is not just New Zealand's first of any kind, but also the world's first private launch range"
Jean-Patrice Keka would disagree that it's the world's first private launch range.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/one-africans-personal-space-race-turns-vermin-into-astronauts-1446239060
Maybe they should say "the world's first private orbital launch range."
Sea Launch would likely disagree as well.
-
Rocket lab first choice of launch location has been put on back burner. I think Rocket lab underestimated the non technical issues with building and launching a LV. Getting permission to build a launch pad that meets their requirements.
http://i.stuff.co.nz/business/73935090/kaitorete-spit-on-the-back-burner-for-rocket-lab-launch
-
Rocket lab first choice of launch location has been put on back burner. I think Rocket lab underestimated the non technical issues with building and launching a LV. Getting permission to build a launch pad that meets their requirements.
http://i.stuff.co.nz/business/73935090/kaitorete-spit-on-the-back-burner-for-rocket-lab-launch
been waiting to hear on this project.
"Mahia would be used in 2016 for Rocket Lab's test fire programme, which would lead to commercial flights in 2017."
Kinda confusing article does test fire mean test launch?
nice HW pic, can't get enough :)
-
Rocket lab first choice of launch location has been put on back burner. I think Rocket lab underestimated the non technical issues with building and launching a LV. Getting permission to build a launch pad that meets their requirements.
http://i.stuff.co.nz/business/73935090/kaitorete-spit-on-the-back-burner-for-rocket-lab-launch
been waiting to hear on this project.
"Mahia would be used in 2016 for Rocket Lab's test fire programme, which would lead to commercial flights in 2017."
Kinda confusing article does test fire mean test launch?
Probably both.. Their head office (and production facility) is in Auckland, meaning the Mahia Peninsula is physically closer than the Kaitorete Spit down south - but given the roads involved, presumably only by boat! :)
According to the article, the biggest issues around the Canterbury area are cultural and, presumably, also earthquake-related and thus tied up in red tape.
IMHO, this might slow them down a little..
-
It shouldn't slow them down to much as launch rate is more likely restricted by production rate. Once pad is operational they should be able to catch up their backlog in a few months.
The big issue is building unproven LVs. They may have to rework built LVs if there are issues with first launch or two.
Road transport should be straight forward. All up length is 16M so 1st stage should be around 12m or less.
-
It shouldn't slow them down to much as launch rate is more likely restricted by production rate. Once pad is operational they should be able to catch up their backlog in a few months.
They want to do a launch a week.
-
Looks like they are ready to start construction of Mahia launch pad.
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11553132
-
Looks like they are ready to start construction of Mahia launch pad.
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11553132
a mix of good and a slip :( looks like the launch site red tape bit them.
but this is worth a look...
-
First flight is now mid 2016 according to that article.
-
If they're only just starting to construct the launch pad I'd be surprised to see a launch in 2016. Mostly because they'll be coming up against a bunch more issues for the first time.
-
Here is another article.
http://gisborneherald.co.nz/localnews/2028665-135/moon-no-limit-for-mahia-launch
Mr Beck said work to prepare the launch pad site at Onenui Station would start as early as next week. That would involve creating a 4km access road and a concrete landing pad, along with a hangar with integrated launch-control facilities.
I'm assuming the "landing pad" was meant to be "launch pad".
Older article but has complete picture of launch site. See pickup truck for scale. I don't think this launch pad will take that long to construct..
The hangar will need to be constructed on site, but is not a complicated building. Most of the infrastructure, including pad can be built offsite and may have already been built.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/70149880/Rocket-Lab-could-make-Canterbury-space-centre-of-Southern-Hemisphere
-
I'm assuming the "landing pad" was meant to be "launch pad".
Or maybe it's for helicopter access?
-
June16 launch from Mahia pad.
http://gisborneherald.co.nz/localnews/2039613-135/rocket-lab-launch-site-blessed
THE final frontier could be conquered as early as next June, when Rocket Lab expects to begin launching test rockets into space from its Mahia Peninsula site.
For Rocket Lab founder and chief executive Peter Beck, launching his first 16m Electron rocket into space from what will be the world’s first commercial orbital launch site is a life-long dream.
On Saturday the remote site on Onenui Station was blessed and the lease agreement signed between Rocket Lab and the landowners — representatives of Tawapata South Incorporation.
Mr Beck gave a small perspex box to the spokesman for Tawapatu, George Mackey. He invited him to place things that are special to them in it, to be sent into orbit with the first launch next June. Some Onenui soil went into the box first.
-
From the video linked to the above release.
-
Off topic, but reminds me when SpaceX was bragging about entire mission control for Falcon 1 being housed in a truck trailer.
-
Off topic, but reminds me when SpaceX was bragging about entire mission control for Falcon 1 being housed in a truck trailer.
Think SpaceX was copying the Wehrmacht's V-2 mobile launch ops & launch logistics. :-X
-
Timetable screwed up by NZ local Government, no surprises there.
-
Timetable screwed up by NZ local Government, no surprises there.
Not necessarily local government fault. With resource consents anybody can protest against a development and slow it down. A lot of time people have genuine concerns which need to be addressed.
With south island launch site, I don't know if this is case but in August articles it seems like Rocket lab had local government on their side.
-
From the Stuff article:
The Department of Conservation also granted permission, but Rocket Lab still needed consents from the Christchurch City Council, which was waiting for a Cultural Impact Assessment to be completed.
"As a result, the application has not been progressed by the council and therefore no decision as to notification under Section 95 of the Resource Management Act 1991 has been made.
"The substantive decision making under Section 104 has also not been undertaken," a council spokeswoman said
Nothing there about objections, "waiting for a Cultural Impact Assessment to be completed" and "As a result, the application has not been progressed" is code for: "application sitting on a desk gathering dust".
-
If delays are due to slow wheels of Christchurch CC, it may well cost them a LV factory and jobs that go with it.
-
Work has started on Mahia launch site.
2017 and 2018 fully booked with approx one launch per month.
https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiJmcCQk-7JAhWnMKYKHUsACEsQqQIIMTAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.3news.co.nz%2Fnznews%2Frocket-lab-begins-work-in-mahia-2015122119&usg=AFQjCNFJqTQ7hL3N4v40WKLSpDCtp2XvPg
-
Some captures of the video in the article in the previous post.
-
Work has started on Mahia launch site.
2017 and 2018 fully booked with approx one launch per month.
https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiJmcCQk-7JAhWnMKYKHUsACEsQqQIIMTAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.3news.co.nz%2Fnznews%2Frocket-lab-begins-work-in-mahia-2015122119&usg=AFQjCNFJqTQ7hL3N4v40WKLSpDCtp2XvPg
FWIW, I just got back from a 2-week cruise to NZ. We parked off Gisborne briefly, but couldn't get ashore to talk to the locals due to 2 metre waves at the entrance to the harbour caused by a south-easterly swell right up the guts... so we sailed away, bound for Wellington.
Anyways, I didn't spot anything significant on Mahia as we went past apart from the usual trees, grass and hills.. but from that distance off-shore I didn't really expect to.
-
The ITAR issues mean that exporting a missile to another country is problematic.
-
The ITAR issues mean that exporting a missile to another country is problematic.
It's more trouble than if ITAR didn't exist, but it's not as impossible as some would have us believe. "It's just paperwork", as they say.
-
The Electron is built and launched in NZ so there is no export issues except for payloads and that is certain countries. Importing Electron into USA for launching shouldn't be issue either.
-
http://www.rocketlabusa.com/careers/propulsion-careers/propulsion-test-engineer-2/
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. For more information on these Regulations, click here http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/regulations_laws/itar.html.
-
http://www.rocketlabusa.com/careers/propulsion-careers/propulsion-test-engineer-2/
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. For more information on these Regulations, click here http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/regulations_laws/itar.html.
Thinking of applying for the job, QG?? :D
-
Thinking of applying for the job, QG?? :D
There's few things that could make me move to NZ...
-
There's few things that could make me move to NZ...
Wow, that is good news...
-
There's few things that could make me move to NZ...
Wow, that is good news...
Good for the Kiwis? Or good for Oz?? ???
Fact is, at least there's an active space-launch program, under a supportive government, in Aotearoa.. and that's something that we aren't likely to see in these parts for decades to come.
-
is there anything better, currently, than LIon for the turbopump motor? I'm not sure there's an optimized power source for such a use case: very high capacity, non-reusable, light.
-perhaps a flow battery? dump the used electrolyte overboard?
-i read something about cruise missiles using zinc-silver peroxide batteries, but it was a very old article
-run a fuel cell really hot but cool it with LOX? or cool LIon with LOX?
-supercapacitors?
-
you need both high energy density AND high power density. You need to dump all the energy in a matter of minutes.
flow batteries won't beat out Li-ion, they have both poor energy density and poor power density.
I don't think fuel cells will either, power density limitations. at least not in an overall pro's and con's tradeoff.
The most viable alternative I can think of is hypergolics into a turbine/generator... but that's going away from their goal of simplicity.
-
How about one turbo-generator (or piston-generator), running nine fuel, and nine oxidizer electric pumps?
[Perhaps batteries, for boost-back, re-entry and landing for a falcon-9-esque reusable, electron.]
-
-perhaps a flow battery? dump the used electrolyte overboard?
-i read something about cruise missiles using zinc-silver peroxide batteries, but it was a very old article
-run a fuel cell really hot but cool it with LOX? or cool LIon with LOX?
-supercapacitors?
Supercapacitors might win on the scale of seconds but not minutes. Fuel cells are too heavy. Cruise missiles are storable munitions, different tradeoffs.
-
There are some fancy chemistry primary lithium batteries that get like 2-3x lithium ion energy density, but I'm not aware of anything that beats good LiPos for high power density.
-
One of the other small LVs was also using electric pumps but I can't remember which one.
-
One of the other small LVs was also using electric pumps but I can't remember which one.
It is the air-launched SALVO rocket, designed by Ventions for DARPA. Very secretive, not much known.
http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/salvo.htm
-
There are some fancy chemistry primary lithium batteries that get like 2-3x lithium ion energy density, but I'm not aware of anything that beats good LiPos for high power density.
Well maybe not power density, but there is a couple of semi commercial products that have higher energy density. One of them is a nano-silicon anode for a lithium chemistry battery: https://youtu.be/ISEzvNevyck?t=2579 (https://youtu.be/ISEzvNevyck?t=2579), interesting lecture by SLAC.
-
There are some fancy chemistry primary lithium batteries that get like 2-3x lithium ion energy density, but I'm not aware of anything that beats good LiPos for high power density.
Well maybe not power density, but there is a couple of semi commercial products that have higher energy density. One of them is a nano-silicon anode for a lithium chemistry battery: https://youtu.be/ISEzvNevyck?t=2579 (https://youtu.be/ISEzvNevyck?t=2579), interesting lecture by SLAC.
That's nothing. 350Wh/kg is par for the course for lab-queen cells.
These primary cells, lithium-thionyl chloride chemistry, get 760Wh/kg:
http://www.varta-microbattery.com/applications/mb_data/documents/sales_literature_varta/handbook_primary_lithium_cylindrical_series_er_en.pdf
If you only need to use it once, you can do about 3 times as good as regular Lithium Ion batteries using this kind of chemistry. But I doubt they can discharge as quickly as some nice hobby LiPos.
-
There are some fancy chemistry primary lithium batteries that get like 2-3x lithium ion energy density, but I'm not aware of anything that beats good LiPos for high power density.
Well maybe not power density, but there is a couple of semi commercial products that have higher energy density. One of them is a nano-silicon anode for a lithium chemistry battery: https://youtu.be/ISEzvNevyck?t=2579 (https://youtu.be/ISEzvNevyck?t=2579), interesting lecture by SLAC.
That's nothing. 350Wh/kg is par for the course for lab-queen cells.
These primary cells, lithium-thionyl chloride chemistry, get 760Wh/kg:
http://www.varta-microbattery.com/applications/mb_data/documents/sales_literature_varta/handbook_primary_lithium_cylindrical_series_er_en.pdf
If you only need to use it once, you can do about 3 times as good as regular Lithium Ion batteries using this kind of chemistry. But I doubt they can discharge as quickly as some nice hobby LiPos.
I guess what I am trying to say is that there might be some new batteries that are coming out within the year that might be better than LiPo :)
Cheers,
c4fusion
-
There are some fancy chemistry primary lithium batteries that get like 2-3x lithium ion energy density, but I'm not aware of anything that beats good LiPos for high power density.
Well maybe not power density, but there is a couple of semi commercial products that have higher energy density. One of them is a nano-silicon anode for a lithium chemistry battery: https://youtu.be/ISEzvNevyck?t=2579 (https://youtu.be/ISEzvNevyck?t=2579), interesting lecture by SLAC.
That's nothing. 350Wh/kg is par for the course for lab-queen cells.
These primary cells, lithium-thionyl chloride chemistry, get 760Wh/kg:
http://www.varta-microbattery.com/applications/mb_data/documents/sales_literature_varta/handbook_primary_lithium_cylindrical_series_er_en.pdf
If you only need to use it once, you can do about 3 times as good as regular Lithium Ion batteries using this kind of chemistry. But I doubt they can discharge as quickly as some nice hobby LiPos.
I guess what I am trying to say is that there might be some new batteries that are coming out within the year that might be better than LiPo :)
Cheers,
c4fusion
With 10 year development cycles the space community is slow to take on new technology. Also they do not like the risk of being the first to use something.
For about $200,000 a 1U cubesat to flight test the new batteries can be built and flown. If they work the manufacture can then claim TRL 9 status for his new batteries (and controller).
-
According to local media, the launch site construction is still on target for March. Considering it only started in December that seems awfully soon, but if it's not too large a site I guess its ok.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/hawkes-bay-today/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503462&objectid=11575931 (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/hawkes-bay-today/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503462&objectid=11575931)
-
There are some fancy chemistry primary lithium batteries that get like 2-3x lithium ion energy density, but I'm not aware of anything that beats good LiPos for high power density.
Well maybe not power density, but there is a couple of semi commercial products that have higher energy density. One of them is a nano-silicon anode for a lithium chemistry battery: https://youtu.be/ISEzvNevyck?t=2579 (https://youtu.be/ISEzvNevyck?t=2579), interesting lecture by SLAC.
That's nothing. 350Wh/kg is par for the course for lab-queen cells.
These primary cells, lithium-thionyl chloride chemistry, get 760Wh/kg:
http://www.varta-microbattery.com/applications/mb_data/documents/sales_literature_varta/handbook_primary_lithium_cylindrical_series_er_en.pdf
If you only need to use it once, you can do about 3 times as good as regular Lithium Ion batteries using this kind of chemistry. But I doubt they can discharge as quickly as some nice hobby LiPos.
The discharge rate on these cells is nearly 3 orders of magnitude too low. My calculations based on what's been said about the power and energy needed for the Electron first stage pumps suggested you wanted cells with a discharge rate of 20-25C so that the power and energy needs would match, i.e. the battery is empty at the end of the first stage burn. This cell has a capacity of 1200mAh at a discharge rate of 1 mA, or 0.00083C. At 20 mA you get half capacity or 600mAh which is 0.033C. So this battery technology is completely unsuited to this use unless there is research that suggest the internal resistance can be radically reduced.
The thing is, you could go order a pile of LiPo cells from hobbyking and build a pack that would work for Electron. Sure, it's weight could be improved but it's not so bad that you lose all your payload. Then you can incrementally improve from there.
-
20~25C makes perfect tradeoff between power density and energy density.
R/C hobby packs, motors, brushless controllers could be large. Multirotors and boats are large now . Customized products go larger.
In fact the bright color of motor on Rutherford looks popular in R/C hobby industry.
Without customization: Largest COTS brushless controllers i know includes Swordfish watercooled 12S (48V) 240A. Could use 12S(48V) 16000mAh packs and 10kw 1kg motors. This yields 500kgf thrust with 1.5MPa chamber pressure , low but useable. Assume pump efficiency 30%, isp 240s, isp vac 300s .
Use 304 stainless steel watertank for solar heater for propellant tanks. Thickness 0.31mm, diameter 360mm, length 0.5~2.5m each .
Use Soyuz rocket style 2 stages and a half configuration,10kg payload (6U cubesat ) to orbit (dv=10km/s) is possible .
Amateur launcher?
-
Without customization: Largest COTS brushless controllers i know includes Swordfish watercooled 12S (48V) 240A. Could use 12S(48V) 16000mAh packs and 10kw 1kg motors. This yields 500kgf thrust with 1.5MPa chamber pressure , low but useable. Assume pump efficiency 30%, isp 240s, isp vac 300s .
Use 304 stainless steel watertank for solar heater for propellant tanks. Thickness 0.31mm, diameter 360mm, length 0.5~2.5m each .
Use Soyuz rocket style 2 stages and a half configuration,10kg payload (6U cubesat ) to orbit (dv=10km/s) is possible .
Amateur launcher?
All COTS parts would make sense for an amateur launcher. However it's not that hard to build bigger brushless motors, and if you hired a decent EE they could build you as big a controller as you need. There is a huge growth in expertise here due to hybrid and electric vehicles, and the need for high efficiency motors for appliances and industry. Heatsink the controllers to the LOX pump output pipe for cooling.
Is the 240/300 isp you estimate due to the low chamber pressure limiting how much sea level expansion you can have? Also this design seems well suited for a bunch of small chambers around a plug aerospike. Since you don't have a gas generator and power turbine to deal with, chance of RUD seems low if your engine controller regulates pump speed and shuts down if increased motor load indicates a pump failure in progress. With benign failure modes, you can use a lot of little engines to increase reliability.
-
Without customization: Largest COTS brushless controllers i know includes Swordfish watercooled 12S (48V) 240A. Could use 12S(48V) 16000mAh packs and 10kw 1kg motors. This yields 500kgf thrust with 1.5MPa chamber pressure , low but useable. Assume pump efficiency 30%, isp 240s, isp vac 300s .
Use 304 stainless steel watertank for solar heater for propellant tanks. Thickness 0.31mm, diameter 360mm, length 0.5~2.5m each .
Use Soyuz rocket style 2 stages and a half configuration,10kg payload (6U cubesat ) to orbit (dv=10km/s) is possible .
Amateur launcher?
All COTS parts would make sense for an amateur launcher. However it's not that hard to build bigger brushless motors, and if you hired a decent EE they could build you as big a controller as you need. There is a huge growth in expertise here due to hybrid and electric vehicles, and the need for high efficiency motors for appliances and industry. Heatsink the controllers to the LOX pump output pipe for cooling.
Is the 240/300 isp you estimate due to the low chamber pressure limiting how much sea level expansion you can have? Also this design seems well suited for a bunch of small chambers around a plug aerospike. Since you don't have a gas generator and power turbine to deal with, chance of RUD seems low if your engine controller regulates pump speed and shuts down if increased motor load indicates a pump failure in progress. With benign failure modes, you can use a lot of little engines to increase reliability.
240/300 isp come from different version of sl / vacuum noozles, conventional. It's not worthy to develop plug noozle in such a small but multidisciplinary project. Keep everything simple.
Decent EE on this power level is industrial conventional but hard (myself worked on E vehicles for years). And the controller project maybe more slow and expensive than the engine project itself. Typically controllers RUD everyday during development.
So it's better to spend decent knowledge on choose and TEST reliable COTS, until big big funding enable do everything inhouse.
The difficulty of rocketary are similar to car industry on every aspects, SpaceX and Tesla. Things typical to industry are huge for startup companies.
"Amateur launcher "with amateur COTS really need money typical to business startups. Indeed business startups of other industry do use amateur COTS, arduino, etc.
-
Sounds like an interesting discussion, but is happening with this company?
-
Apparently this is "fan art" but RocketLab shared it.
I, for one, look forward to watching the grass fires.
Source: https://www.facebook.com/Solarexploration/
-
Cool artwork, is it painted or computer generated?
-
Apparently this is "fan art" but RocketLab shared it.
I, for one, look forward to watching the grass fires.
Source: https://www.facebook.com/Solarexploration/
Well, they want to give themselves a 'green' image. But in seriousness, this is probably just for the picture as their official images seem to show a lot less grass.
-
NB Both companies are funded by Bessemer Venture Partners.
"While Rocket Lab has yet to fly their first commercial mission, Spire has made an agreement with the launch provider for an impressive 12 launches over the next 18 months once their launch facility is complete."
http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/12/newcomer-rocket-lab-secures-spire-as-their-next-customer/
-
Rocket Lab announced today that Garrett Katzenstein has joined the company as Vice President of Product and Mission Management. Katzenstein will oversee customer experience from point of sale through vehicle integration and successful launch.
Katzenstein was most recently the Senior Manager for Mission and Launch Operations at SpaceX.
http://spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=48022
-
Small update: they still seem to be holding to timetable for the launch site, and still saying "mid 2016" for the first launch, although my money would be on "late 2016":
Wairoa District Council is "aggressively" pursuing a bid for the district to be the base of a manufacturing facility for United States-based company Rocket Lab.
The company hopes to complete construction of New Zealand's first commercial rocket launch site on Mahia Peninsula this month, with a target to complete infrastructure and commissioning in late April.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/hawkes-bay-today/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503462&objectid=11600621 (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/hawkes-bay-today/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503462&objectid=11600621)
-
A news story linked a few weeks ago on @rocketlabusa includes a video which I have included some stills from.
http://www.newshub.co.nz/nznews/young-boy-with-brain-tumour-fulfills-his-rocket-dream-2016022117#axzz41DhErvzR
It appears to show a larger engine test stand than before. The kid involved got to sign his name on the rocket 'that will be the first to go to space'. It looks to me like part of the second stage.
-
Rocket Lab's Rutherford Engine has been qualified for flight after the completion of a rigorous test program. The Rutherford engine has been created by Rocket Lab specifically for the Electron launch vehicle. As the first oxygen/hydrocarbon engine to use additive manufacturing for all primary components of the combustor and propellant supply system, the qualification of this engine is a major milestone for 3D printing. Check out the video below to see the Rutherford in action.
https://vimeo.com/160032981#at=0
Rocket Lab today announced its Rutherford Engine has been qualified for flight after the completion of a rigorous test program.
The 5,000 lbf Rutherford engine was created by Rocket Lab specifically for the company’s Electron launch vehicle. Rutherford has been tested extensively for over two years, and was qualified for flight after completing more than two hundred engine hot fires. The engine will first be flown during the Electron test program scheduled to run throughout the second half of 2016.
The qualification of the engine is a major milestone for 3D printing; Rutherford is the first oxygen/hydrocarbon engine to use additive manufacturing for all primary components of the combustor and propellant supply system. Rutherford also has a unique electric propulsion cycle, making use of high-performance brushless DC electric motors and lithium polymer batteries to drive its turbopumps.
Electron uses nine Rutherford engines on its first stage, and a vacuum variant of the same engine on its second stage. The vehicle is capable of delivering a 150kg payload to a 500km sun-synchronous orbit, the target range for the high-growth constellation-satellite market.
-
Update
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34421.msg1508348#msg1508348
-
Rocket lab looking at using Electron as upper stage of DARPA XS1.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/03/30/darpa-sbir-awards-xs1-rocket-technologies/
Low Cost Expendable Launch Technology
Rocket Lab USA, Inc.
Frederick, Colo.
Program: DARPA SBIR Phase I
Year: 2015
Amount: $99,964
Principal Investigator: Bradley J Schneider
Description
Rocket Lab USA, Inc. proposes to develop and demonstrate how the use of the Electron launch vehicle either as an upper stage in support of the XS-1 program or dedicated small launch vehicle could employ the use of Automated Flight Termination (AFTS) technologies to reduce the cost of access to space without adversely impacting public safety. Providing the launch opportunity to obtain flight telemetry from Rocket Lab’s initial test flight will enable the development of a ruggedized AFTS for future DARPA, NASA and commercial launch campaigns.
Novel Propellant, High-
- See more at: http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/03/30/darpa-sbir-awards-xs1-rocket-technologies/#sthash.wvr3JYuy.r4dM3B2P.dpuf
-
Rocket lab looking at using Electron as upper stage of DARPA XS1.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/03/30/darpa-sbir-awards-xs1-rocket-technologies/
Low Cost Expendable Launch Technology
Rocket Lab USA, Inc.
Frederick, Colo.
Program: DARPA SBIR Phase I
Year: 2015
Amount: $99,964
Principal Investigator: Bradley J Schneider
Description
Rocket Lab USA, Inc. proposes to develop and demonstrate how the use of the Electron launch vehicle either as an upper stage in support of the XS-1 program or dedicated small launch vehicle could employ the use of Automated Flight Termination (AFTS) technologies to reduce the cost of access to space without adversely impacting public safety. Providing the launch opportunity to obtain flight telemetry from Rocket Lab’s initial test flight will enable the development of a ruggedized AFTS for future DARPA, NASA and commercial launch campaigns.
Novel Propellant, High-
- See more at: http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/03/30/darpa-sbir-awards-xs1-rocket-technologies/#sthash.wvr3JYuy.r4dM3B2P.dpuf
Note that this was a feasibility study award from a year ago sometime. Does anyone know if Phase II announcements have been made for this batch of Phase Is? I don't often end up proposing to DoD SBIR/STTR solicitations.
~Jon
-
What were the nine most terrifying words in English language again? I think for space startups it goes something like: here is a contract from government, it's here to help
-
What were the nine most terrifying words in English language again? I think for space startups it goes something like: here is a contract from government, it's here to help.
Rocketlab has been doing contracts for the government for years. It's what allowed them to bootstrap far enough to convince investors to fund them to develop Electron. If you don't start out with several $M yourself, it's pretty much one of the only ways to get to a point where you can raise money to develop a commercial product, especially if there is technology development that needs to happen to bring the product to market. It sucks, but it sucks less than not being able to try at all.
~Jon
-
There a few possibilities for Electron as XS1 upstage.
1) use booster only with a few vacuum engines (3-4?) for LEO payloads
2) use same booster plus current Electron US for BLEO payloads. Would be perfect for Moon express landers.
-
What were the nine most terrifying words in English language again? I think for space startups it goes something like: here is a contract from government, it's here to help.
Rocketlab has been doing contracts for the government for years. It's what allowed them to bootstrap far enough to convince investors to fund them to develop Electron. If you don't start out with several $M yourself, it's pretty much one of the only ways to get to a point where you can raise money to develop a commercial product, especially if there is technology development that needs to happen to bring the product to market. It sucks, but it sucks less than not being able to try at all.
Maybe it's just me, but whenever someone mentions Rocketlab Electron, I can't help thinking of the previous use of the name: Teignmouth Electron.. and that didn't end well at all.
-
Maybe it's just me, but whenever someone mentions Rocketlab Electron, I can't help thinking of the previous use of the name: Teignmouth Electron.. and that didn't end well at all.
As someone who regularly/regrettably visits the decrepit seaside town of Teignmouth, UK, after which said boat was partially named, I can emphatically tell you that it's the 'Teignmouth' part of the name that doomed that particular vessel to failure, and not the 'Electron' part. ;)
-
https://rocketlabusa.com/rocket-lab-qualifies-second-stage-of-electron-launch-vehicle/
Rocket Lab announced today that it has successfully completed the qualification of the entire second stage of the Electron launch vehicle.
The second stages are running at peak performance and are set to fly during the Electron test program scheduled to run throughout the second half of 2016.
https://vimeo.com/162756073#at=0
-
Here's a terrible quality, grainy picture of the launch site Electron will take off from, still under construction:
(http://gisborneherald.co.nz/csp/mediapool/sites/dt.common.streams.StreamServer.cls?STREAMOID=_$RqWdEt2Q3mxn9RsfwMYs$daE2N3K4ZzOUsqbU5sYvg1KaeF$hf5kQUCwGQV5qnWCsjLu883Ygn4B49Lvm9bPe2QeMKQdVeZmXF$9l$4uCZ8QDXhaHEp3rvzXRJFdy0KqPHLoMevcTLo3h8xh70Y6N_U_CryOsw6FTOdKL_jpQ-&CONTENTTYPE=image/jpeg)
And a link to the story, which has a wee bit of detail as to the progress on the building site. The latest I've heard is that Rocket Lab is saying it will be completed by the end of May, although a month ago it was the end of April, so who knows.
http://gisborneherald.co.nz/localnews/2291095-135/rocket-lab-launches-improved-mahia-internet (http://gisborneherald.co.nz/localnews/2291095-135/rocket-lab-launches-improved-mahia-internet)
-
Here's a terrible quality, grainy picture of the launch site Electron will take off from, still under construction:
That would be about here : https://goo.gl/maps/cF3wHJXAnbT2
-
Here's a much nicer picture of the launch site as it looked on April 17. Still under construction:
(https://scontent.fakl1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/12439345_1078779285517598_968442428841854128_n.jpg?oh=06ae00de40bc2029212ffbcc0e293130&oe=57E74653)
-
Definitely going up nicely, compared to their tweets from Dec-January.
https://twitter.com/RocketLabUSA/status/684920259292213248
https://twitter.com/RocketLabUSA/status/679060608076115968
Their twitter feed has some other nice recent hardware pr0n too, fairings, engines ..
-
Picturesque! I do hope they stream the first launch.
-
Looks like all ground and concrete work is done, still missing fueling infrastructure, water tanks and lightening towers etc.
Most of this is probably being constructed off site, installation shouldn't take to long.
July launch is looking realistic.
-
New Zealand?
I hope they have their ITAR clearances in hand.
-
New Zealand?
I hope they have their ITAR clearances in hand.
Why? This company is based in New Zealand.
- Ed Kyle
-
New Zealand?
I hope they have their ITAR clearances in hand.
ITAR only applies to countries USA is not on best of terms with. For DOD launches Rocket labs plans to launch out USA.
-
New Zealand?
I hope they have their ITAR clearances in hand.
NZ is part of Five Eyes; a US, UK, Canada, Australia and NZ intelligence alliance dating to WW-2. I think we can trust NZ to keep their end secure.
-
New Zealand?
I hope they have their ITAR clearances in hand.
While the majority of the ownership of the company appears to now be American, the technology they're using is being developed and manufactured in New Zealand with most of their top technical people being Kiwi's, so there's no potentially military technology leaving the US.
-
The payloads from US customers are probably still an issue. Doing ITAR paperwork isn't as painful as most people think. It's just another overhead.
-
ITAR only applies to countries USA is not on best of terms with. For DOD launches Rocket labs plans to launch out USA.
Trevor,
That's not incorrect. ITAR applies to all non-US persons/entities, even those in friendly countries. It's probably easier to get a TAA for talking with the Evil Canadians or exporting rockets to New Zealand for launch than say selling military hardware to Russia or China, but you still have to comply with ITAR even for our closest allies. It's when something falls under EAR that you have STA exemptions you can claim in some cases for close allies. Part of why we pushed so hard to get as much off of the US Munitions List and onto the EAR commerce control list.
~Jon
-
The payloads from US customers are probably still an issue. Doing ITAR paperwork isn't as painful as most people think. It's just another overhead.
Presumably no worse than a US company launching on Proton...
-
Looks like all ground and concrete work is done, still missing fueling infrastructure, water tanks and lightening towers etc.
Most of this is probably being constructed off site, installation shouldn't take to long.
July launch is looking realistic.
I'll believe it when I see their rocket rolled out to the pad with the 1st flight satellites on top. Nothing short of that would convince me. ::)
Speaking of which, who and what satellites are flying on them after all? They claimed that they have bookings for dozens of flights yet most are unaccounted for and the only one identified are some mini Earth observation says from a startup company. Its hard to see how they operates without a clear list of customers. :-X
(In comparison, look at the earliest days of SpaceX - even then people know who has bought a flight and they could easily assign the booked slots to actual known satellites)
-
Looks like all ground and concrete work is done, still missing fueling infrastructure, water tanks and lightening towers etc.
Most of this is probably being constructed off site, installation shouldn't take to long.
July launch is looking realistic.
Having worked with rocket plumbing before, a July launch when they don't have any of the fuel loading infrastructure in place yet seems... optimistic.
~Jon
-
Having worked with rocket plumbing before, a July launch when they don't have any of the fuel loading infrastructure in place yet seems... optimistic.
~Jon
They'll do it in parallel, build all their own components and are totally vertically integrated ! You naysayer
Meanwhile, enjoy this 10-minute interview with Peter Beck
https://unfiltered.co.nz/gcs/peter-beck/#story
-
Having worked with rocket plumbing before, a July launch when they don't have any of the fuel loading infrastructure in place yet seems... optimistic.
~Jon
Just curious: What stops them trucking the fuel in on launch day?? By American standards, this isn't a very big rocket..
-
Just curious: What stops them trucking the fuel in on launch day?? By American standards, this isn't a very big rocket..
A bit of a truck drive, there : https://goo.gl/maps/Y26Ry67XrEq
-
Just curious: What stops them trucking the fuel in on launch day?? By American standards, this isn't a very big rocket..
A bit of a truck drive, there : https://goo.gl/maps/Y26Ry67XrEq
From Auckland, yes.. but from Napier? Would they really truck the rocket all the way from Auckland?? IIRC, that's a pretty crappy road.
-
Just curious: What stops them trucking the fuel in on launch day?? By American standards, this isn't a very big rocket..
A bit of a truck drive, there : https://goo.gl/maps/Y26Ry67XrEq
From Auckland, yes.. but from Napier? Would they really truck the rocket all the way from Auckland?? IIRC, that's a pretty crappy road.
In many ways this reminds me of Falcon I at Kwaj. Their rocket isn't that much smaller than Falcon I, and it was also in a remote site. There's a lot that may go into fueling a rocket this size. And if the fueling infrastructure isn't in place yet, are there other "minor" items that aren't ready yet either. Just a good rule of thumb that once the rocket or test stand "looks" like a rocket or test stand, you're only starting to get close to operations. The rule of thumb I heard from a friend at Scaled was that once a new prototype airplane actually looked like an airplane (ie had wings, wheels, and engines), you were still probably a year out from flight test.
Is it possible they have everything ready to click together, and they won't run into any snags that take time to resolve? Sure. I'm just saying I think that's optimistic. Not impossible, just optimistic. Even if they don't make July though, I think they have a reasonable shot at getting a successful flight off before the end of this year.
~Jon
-
First a couple of questions: How hard would it be set up a LOX plant say a few km away and truck to the site? I don't see evidence of a mains power supply, so given the remoteness, and initial infrequency of launches, would that mean diesel generators would be reasonable to start with? What are the challenges of getting a RP-1 supply, could it be produced from commercial kerosene or at a major refinery or does it need to be sourced off shore?
There's a lot that may go into fueling a rocket this size. And if the fueling infrastructure isn't in place yet, are there other "minor" items that aren't ready yet either.
~Jon
So what is that specifically, outside of a LOX and RP-1 supply and the equipment to pump them into the rocket?
Thanks.
EDIT:
Can I compare the complexity of the fueling operation to that of the V2, which was a similar size and fueled with LOX and ethanol, it was launched from a mobile system consisting of 3 trucks (one tractor unit towing the Meillerwagen missile carrier and erector, one LOX tanker, one fuel tanker) and 2 command vehicles.
-
From Auckland, yes.. but from Napier? Would they really truck the rocket all the way from Auckland?? IIRC, that's a pretty crappy road.
I actually looked it up. Napier has plenty of infrastructure for this (http://www.boc.co.nz/), and even Wairoa. So yeah, not that far.
Taupo to Auckland isnt bad at all, i've driven this in a van, but the coastal road is probably a bit more adventurous.
-
New Zealand?
I hope they have their ITAR clearances in hand.
ITAR only applies to countries USA is not on best of terms with. For DOD launches Rocket labs plans to launch out USA.
ITAR applies to all countries.
NZ is part of Five Eyes; a US, UK, Canada, Australia and NZ intelligence alliance dating to WW-2. I think we can trust NZ to keep their end secure.
Doesn't matter, this company must obtain a TAA to even discuss rocketry with nationals of New Zealand.
While the majority of the ownership of the company appears to now be American, the technology they're using is being developed and manufactured in New Zealand with most of their top technical people being Kiwi's, so there's no potentially military technology leaving the US.
As long as no Americans have any unlicensed discussions with nationals of New Zealand, there would be no issue, although I would recommend that the company engage with an expert on ITAR first.
Remember, Boeing received a $6 million fine for having personnel in the same room where Russians and Ukrainians were discussing rocket technology in Russian.
-
Doesn't matter, this company must obtain a TAA to even discuss rocketry with nationals of New Zealand.
"This company" is a New Zealand company, with a U.S. presence only for funding and contracts, etc., a probably for paperwork like ITAR.
- Ed Kyle
-
As long as no Americans have any unlicensed discussions with nationals of New Zealand, there would be no issue, although I would recommend that the company engage with an expert on ITAR first.
Remember, Boeing received a $6 million fine for having personnel in the same room where Russians and Ukrainians were discussing rocket technology in Russian.
They've been working on this for years, with operations in New Zealand and U.S., they have received government contracts already, you really think they've never heard of ITAR and don't already have plans in place for dealing with it?
-
Doesn't matter, this company must obtain a TAA to even discuss rocketry with nationals of New Zealand.
"This company" is a New Zealand company, with a U.S. presence only for funding and contracts, etc., a probably for paperwork like ITAR.
- Ed Kyle
Hmmm... It must have been that whole "rocketlabusa.com" thing that fooled me. As long as all of the engineers are nationals of New Zealand, and no one from the USA is involved in technical discussions, they would be OK.
-
James Dean @flatoday_jdean 10m10 minutes ago
Rocket Lab's Schneider: targeting 1st Electron test launch late summer, 1st commercial flight Feb. '17, cross fingers. #SpaceCongress2016
-
Is that northern or southern summer? I suppose the former, because February '17 is still in the southern summer.
Looks like Electron will fly before Falcon Heavy, but after CZ-7. And more important, first of the current wave of small launchers in development. And probably before the International Astronautical Congress of 26-30 September too.
-
This was at a conference in the US, so will be northern summer.
-
James Dean @flatoday_jdean 10m10 minutes ago
Rocket Lab's Schneider: targeting 1st Electron test launch late summer, 1st commercial flight Feb. '17, cross fingers. #SpaceCongress2016
They keep using the phrase '1st test launch' so I wonder how many they are planning? One test flight seems enough for other rockets. Maybe it is in case of failure they will be ready with another.
-
They keep using the phrase '1st test launch' so I wonder how many they are planning? One test flight seems enough for other rockets. Maybe it is in case of failure they will be ready with another.
The most relevant recent comparison (brand new launcher developed by a startup) is probably Falcon 1, which required four. With luck, Electron will need fewer, but I would hope they are budgeting for at least four.
-
They could offer the first few flights at a heavily discount rate. Cubesats should be reasonably resilient to LV failure compared to big GEO satellites. In most cases replacing a cubesat should only take a few months, in case of Planetlabs weeks.
I'm picking there will be a few customers willing to risk their cubesats for cheap early ride.
-
James Dean @flatoday_jdean 10m10 minutes ago
Rocket Lab's Schneider: targeting 1st Electron test launch late summer, 1st commercial flight Feb. '17, cross fingers. #SpaceCongress2016
Another tweet was this:
https://twitter.com/flatoday_jdean/status/735172696443658240
Rocket Lab's Schneider: actively looking at launch site options in Florida; working on reducing range costs. #SpaceCongress2016
Thats the issue with these launchers - range fees end up being a substantial chunk of the costs. I wonder if they have any recurring fees for launching from Mahia, apart from their own infrastructure upkeep costs ?
And another :
https://twitter.com/FLSPACErePORT/status/735173053957603328
Rocket Lab talking to other US spaceports, working w/KSC, hopes USAF can lower cost for Electron on the Eastern Range. #SpaceCongress2016
-
James Dean @flatoday_jdean 10m10 minutes ago
Rocket Lab's Schneider: targeting 1st Electron test launch late summer, 1st commercial flight Feb. '17, cross fingers. #SpaceCongress2016
Anyone betting $1 US that this (or heck even the first flight in 2016) won't happen? ::)
-
James Dean @flatoday_jdean 10m10 minutes ago
Rocket Lab's Schneider: targeting 1st Electron test launch late summer, 1st commercial flight Feb. '17, cross fingers. #SpaceCongress2016
Anyone betting $1 US that this (or heck even the first flight in 2016) won't happen? ::)
You want to set up a pool ? I'd put $25 on them at least taking off but probably not making orbit - or even space.
-
James Dean @flatoday_jdean 10m10 minutes ago
Rocket Lab's Schneider: targeting 1st Electron test launch late summer, 1st commercial flight Feb. '17, cross fingers. #SpaceCongress2016
Anyone betting $1 US that this (or heck even the first flight in 2016) won't happen? ::)
You want to set up a pool ? I'd put $25 on them at least taking off but probably not making orbit - or even space.
Perhaps we need a Rocketlab Bingo then?
-
That's not very nice.
I wish our eastward cousins the best of luck.
-
That's not very nice.
I wish our eastward cousins the best of luck.
As do I.. believe me. 8)
-
I reckon 2017 they'll nail it. Probably second or third flight (give some leeway for them RUDing up their first rocket). 2016 seems a touch aggressive - here's hoping they succeed.
-
I reckon 2017 they'll nail it. Probably second or third flight (give some leeway for them RUDing up their first rocket). 2016 seems a touch aggressive - here's hoping they succeed.
2016 for at least an attempt to launch, because they are a startup with limited runway and next funding cliff always on the horizon. Just execution matters more than success at certain stage, for gaining more runway - although stellar success is always welcome.
-
The New Zealand Government is putting into place the legislation required for space launch, including agreements with the US:
There are new rules for outer space, as New Zealand gears up for its first rocket launch with the help of the United States.
Science and Innovation Minister Steven Joyce says a new regime will help secure and responsible space launches from New Zealand.
Measures include introducing the High Altitude Activities Bill to outline international obligations, put in safety guidelines and penalties.
All launches must have a license and payload permit from the launch facility which can last up to five years. The Minister may revoke or suspend these. New Zealanders must also apply for launch licenses outside of New Zealand.
A successful applicant must also pass a "fit and proper person test" which includes looking at compliance history, experience in the industry, mental health and convictions.
A new agreement with the United States has also been reached to protect their rocket and satellite technology on New Zealand soil.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/81041705/new-zealands-space-policy-government-lays-out-rocket-rules-and-united-states-pact
-
New Zealand gets a space agency! Their web page includes a link to Rocketlab.
http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/sectors-industries/space/nz-space-agency/
-
Argentina is developing their own, but for initial testing we are sourcing RG-1 from Russia. I understand that India has also developed their own RG-1 version.
-
How about RocketLab joining the fashion of using methane?
-
CameronD, could you perhaps give a few more details of how far along things are? I ask because I've been following this pretty closely, (I'm a Kiwi, so I'm REALLY hoping this one succeeds), and news has been rather scarce. Peter Beck said a few months ago that the launch site would be finished by May, but I haven't heard anything since, (not surprising if they're not quite on schedule, new projects almost never are), although one news report said the launch site is finished, and they're now in a "commissioning" phase, whatever that means.
If you don't know anything else, that's fine, it just seems you know a bit more than the press does right now, and I'm impatient :)
-
CameronD, could you perhaps give a few more details of how far along things are? I ask because I've been following this pretty closely, (I'm a Kiwi, so I'm REALLY hoping this one succeeds), and news has been rather scarce. Peter Beck said a few months ago that the launch site would be finished by May, but I haven't heard anything since, (not surprising if they're not quite on schedule, new projects almost never are), although one news report said the launch site is finished, and they're now in a "commissioning" phase, whatever that means.
If you don't know anything else, that's fine, it just seems you know a bit more than the press does right now, and I'm impatient :)
Well.. I'm sure it's safe to say that ordinary folks on both sides of the Tasman are, like yourself, wishing them all the very best in their endeavours and hoping they succeed.
..but I've probably said too much already. :-X
-
It's pretty quiet around here right now, so here's a couple of small update I could find. Normally I probably wouldn't go to the effort of posting this, but hey its something right now :)
First up, here's a newer picture of the launch site and the progress they're making. It's still a month old, so they'll be further along than this, AND its only a small part of the picture, but hey it's something:
https://www.facebook.com/MahiaBoatingFishingClub/photos/a.371577199580860.84227.310142042391043/1070362969702276/?type=3&theater (https://www.facebook.com/MahiaBoatingFishingClub/photos/a.371577199580860.84227.310142042391043/1070362969702276/?type=3&theater)
Also, if you click on the picture accompanying this article there's a high-res pic of everyone with what looks like flight hardware, some of which is new to me, maybe not to others who might've been paying more attention. Bonus is the facial expressions of the engineers who look like they're thinking "have you got your little picture now? I need to go back to work":
http://www.satellitetoday.com/publications/st/2016/07/01/rocket-lab-turns-10-plans-first-electron-launch-year/ (http://www.satellitetoday.com/publications/st/2016/07/01/rocket-lab-turns-10-plans-first-electron-launch-year/)
-
It's pretty quiet around here right now, so here's a couple of small update I could find. Normally I probably wouldn't go to the effort of posting this, but hey its something right now :)
First up, here's a newer picture of the launch site and the progress they're making. It's still a month old, so they'll be further along than this, AND its only a small part of the picture, but hey it's something:
https://www.facebook.com/MahiaBoatingFishingClub/photos/a.371577199580860.84227.310142042391043/1070362969702276/?type=3&theater (https://www.facebook.com/MahiaBoatingFishingClub/photos/a.371577199580860.84227.310142042391043/1070362969702276/?type=3&theater)
All interesting info. It would have been nice to listen in at that meeting on June 18.. Does anyone here happen know anyone who was there?
-
Well.. I'm sure it's safe to say that ordinary folks on both sides of the Tasman are, like yourself, wishing them all the very best in their endeavours and hoping they succeed.
Not just "on both sides of the Tasman" but world wide (well I guess technically everywhere is on one side of it or the other???)
-
Dava Newman visits RocketLab:
https://twitter.com/usembassynz/status/752329216058732544
Imgur host of the images:
http://imgur.com/a/aTZKo
-
Here are those images for posterity.
-
3 dedicated Electron launches for Planet Doves cubesats announced by Rocketlab today. Starting in 2017
-
Here are those images for posterity.
Rocking the vertical striped pantsuit
-
3 dedicated Electron launches for Planet Doves cubesats announced by Rocketlab today. Starting in 2017
Here's the release from RocketLab;
https://rocketlabusa.com/rocket-lab-and-planet-sign-launch-services-agreement/
Planet and Rocket Lab have signed a Launch Services Agreement for at least three dedicated launches on Rocket Lab’s Electron launch vehicle.
The agreement will see Electron used to expand and replenish Planet’s existing on-orbit fleet of Dove satellites. Planet will utilize the full capacity of Electron for each of the launches, which are scheduled to begin in 2017.
-
Large manifest secured by RL before their Maiden flight:
1 launch for NASA VCLS
3 for MoonExpress + 2 options
12 for Spire
3 for Planet
They are clearly the leading emerging microlauncher players
-
Large manifest secured by RL before their Maiden flight:
1 launch for NASA VCLS
3 for MoonExpress + 2 options
12 for Spire
3 for Planet
They are clearly the leading emerging microlauncher players
Spire has also signed a contract for launching some of its satellites on Electron launches, although those will be manifested as secondary payloads.
- See more at: http://spacenews.com/planet-purchases-three-launches-from-rocket-lab/#sthash.nRayd0wR.dpuf
-
Large manifest secured by RL before their Maiden flight:
1 launch for NASA VCLS
3 for MoonExpress + 2 options
12 for Spire
3 for Planet
They are clearly the leading emerging microlauncher players
Not to de-ride them, but the Planet Labs contract is the 1st one that I have a more secure feeling - the NASA one was given to everyone who have some sort of chance to fly, the MoonExpress one is (by its nature) quite volatile and Spire hasn't flown anything to space yet. Their list of customers was one of the things that I have big reservations (they once said that they have dozens of flights booked but declined to name them, and few has shown up in public either), and it's good to see this contract coming up.
I'm still skeptical that they can fly in 2016 though - perhaps next year will be their show time. ;)
-
Spire hasn't flown anything to space yet.
Spire has launched Lemurs several times now and supposedly has more going on the oft-delayed Sherpa.
-
Large manifest secured by RL before their Maiden flight:
1 launch for NASA VCLS
3 for MoonExpress + 2 options
12 for Spire
3 for Planet
They are clearly the leading emerging microlauncher players
Spire has also signed a contract for launching some of its satellites on Electron launches, although those will be manifested as secondary payloads.
What worries me about all this publicity is that RL have all these customers signed up but have yet to demonstrate even a single test flight of the rocket: could they end up a satellite-payload version of XCOR?
What if the first flight is a failure? The second? Third?? There are a zillion things that could go wrong. Do their customers all then run off to other providers with demonstrated runs on the board?? I do remember it took SpaceX three goes to get single successful launch and, although I hope they do, I'm not convinced people will put the same (or more) faith in the guys at Rocketlab.
-
Spire hasn't flown anything to space yet.
Spire has launched Lemurs several times now and supposedly has more going on the oft-delayed Sherpa.
Whoops you are correct - I only remembered the company's previous name. That puts them at 14 cubesats launched on 3 different rides starting from 2014.
What worries me about all this publicity is that RL have all these customers signed up but have yet to demonstrate even a single test flight of the rocket: could they end up a satellite-payload version of XCOR?
What if the first flight is a failure? The second? Third?? There are a zillion things that could go wrong. Do their customers all then run off to other providers with demonstrated runs on the board?? I do remember it took SpaceX three goes to get single successful launch and, although I hope they do, I'm not convinced people will put the same (or more) faith in the guys at Rocketlab.
Agreed, although they probably don't have a customer like DARPA did to SpaceX at that time. Perhaps the NASA one will be the first "operational" flight?
-
Agreed, although they probably don't have a customer like DARPA did to SpaceX at that time. Perhaps the NASA one will be the first "operational" flight?
No idea.. but I wouldn't think so. Losing some poor school's Cube-sat is one thing, but if their maiden VCLS launch failed or (maybe worse?) the payload wound up in the wrong orbit, it'd be all over the newsfeeds on both sides of the Pacific. They'd probly never win a launch for NASA again out of sheer embarrassment.
-
Dava Newman visits RocketLab:
https://twitter.com/usembassynz/status/752329216058732544
Well.. it safe to say she got to see a lot more than I did! :'(
-
Agreed, although they probably don't have a customer like DARPA did to SpaceX at that time. Perhaps the NASA one will be the first "operational" flight?
No idea.. but I wouldn't think so. Losing some poor school's Cube-sat is one thing, but if their maiden VCLS launch failed or (maybe worse?) the payload wound up in the wrong orbit, it'd be all over the newsfeeds on both sides of the Pacific. They'd probly never win a launch for NASA again out of sheer embarrassment.
VCLS would make a fine first operational flight, as its entire purpose is to help new providers get off the ground. Losing it would be bad, of course, but hardly a fatal blow. As the SpaceNews article says:
http://spacenews.com/nasa-awards-contracts-for-dedicated-cubesat-launches/
All three companies are still developing their small satellite launch vehicles, with first launches planned no sooner than early 2016. NASA officials acknowledged at the press conference that this approach carries some risk, since there is no guarantee that the vehicles will be ready as scheduled, or at all. “We’re definitely going after a high-risk approach here,” acknowledged Mark Wiese, the flight projects office chief for NASA’s Launch Services Program.
“The cubesats represent that high risk tolerant payload, which are perfect for the demonstration of a first flight.”
All of the pre-launch customers have some higher tolerance of risk for these contracts or they would not have signed with an unproven provider.
edit: fix quotes
-
The historical failure rate for new LVs is very high in first few flights. It not so much if the Electron will have a failure but when. Given a failure is expect, best it is one of early test flights.
-
Fairing acceptance test:
https://twitter.com/RocketLabUSA/status/755873671881773056
-
Here's an interesting tidbit from the Flightglobal reporting of Moon Express's approval for an attempted moon landing:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-clears-first-private-company-to-make-moon-landing-428182/ (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-clears-first-private-company-to-make-moon-landing-428182/)
Moon Express has signed contracts with Rocket Lab to supply both the Electron rockets to perform the launch and the MX-1E micro-lander to descend onto Mars.
Did I read that right? Rocketlab are building mars landing vehicles also?!? :o
-
Did I read that right? Rocketlab are building mars landing vehicles also?!? :o
Whatever Flightglobal says, MX-1E is approved by the FAA for landing on the Moon, not on Mars.
http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/organizations/moon-express/moon-express-gains-regulatory-approval-moon-shot/
-
It will be a mistake by journalist. Electron MX-1E combination is marginal for lunar lander let alone mars.
-
What worries me about all this publicity is that RL have all these customers signed up but have yet to demonstrate even a single test flight of the rocket: could they end up a satellite-payload version of XCOR?
What if the first flight is a failure? The second? Third?? There are a zillion things that could go wrong. Do their customers all then run off to other providers with demonstrated runs on the board?? I do remember it took SpaceX three goes to get single successful launch and, although I hope they do, I'm not convinced people will put the same (or more) faith in the guys at Rocketlab.
If you look at what happened to Super Strypi and Falcon 1, a first failure with payload, while expected, leads to a dummy payload until the vehicle proves itself. Rocket Lab are the best of the bunch IMHO, and far ahead, but progress always slows down when you get to the actual launches.
Firstly, getting the first one off the ground ALWAYS takes longer. Right now I think they will be lucky to get even a sub-orb away before early 2017, based on progress of the launch site and susbsystems. We are in August already and they are showing fairing sep tests and launch site in a semi-finished state - while still saying "end of the year". It slips and slips, but this is normal.
Secondly there is almost certainly going to be a failure during early launches for one reason or another. That will lead to literally months if not years of delays while they analyze what went wrong and re-engineer and test the problem. This is what kills cashflow, as customers and investor dry up at this point, so making sure you have a full bank account prior to launch 1 is crucial. This consideration also is a factor in management decision to go/no go - it is a calculated risk based on readiness and cash.
They clearly want to launch in the antipodean Summer time - circa Dec-March, 3-4-5 months from now - but honestly I doubt they will make that, because all the usual human stuff like school summer holidays in December/Jan in Aus/NZ and just because they are not close enough to ready I think.
And that then pushes them out into New Zealand autumn and winter; the issue then is weather, as Mahia gets 70+ days a year with wind gusts above 63 kph, which is a Force 8 gale, most of them in autumn, spring and winter ie., March-November (https://www.niwa.co.nz/static/Hawkes%20Bay%20WEB.pdf pp15-17).
Even if you say your rocket handles significant loads, I think we can all agree that F8 gales - probably plus rain/sleet/snow, as the minimum monthly temps in winter are sub-zero degrees C - are not good launch conditions.
So if you then struggle to find a good launch window, you are hanging almost another year until Southern spring/summer 2017...
Anyway, I think again they are the most advanced and complete of the pack, but it's a long way from looking like a rocket to flying like one. I would put my money on late 2017 launch.
-
Doesn't matter, this company must obtain a TAA to even discuss rocketry with nationals of New Zealand.
"This company" is a New Zealand company, with a U.S. presence only for funding and contracts, etc., a probably for paperwork like ITAR.
- Ed Kyle
Actually the NZ company is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the US one. You can check this at NZ Companies Office:-
https://www.business.govt.nz/companies/app/ui/pages/companies/1835428?
backurl=%2Fcompanies%2Fapp%2Fui%2Fpages%2Fcompanies%2Fsearch%
3Fmode%3Dstandard%26type%3Dentities%26q%3Drocket%2520lab
This makes the beneficial owner a US-resident corporation, and therefore it is subject to US laws including ITAR, MTCR etc.
And as a result the NZ government has drafted a National Interests Analysis and subsequently a Technology Safeguard Agreement with the US government on technology exchange specifically for Rocket Lab:-
NIA:
https://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-NZ/00DBSCH_ITR_69357_1/a547a574617eef61024ddd01b00c797a1f01229a
TSA:
http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/sectors-industries/space/pdf-library/A%20Regulatory%20Regime%20to%20Enable%20Space%20
Launches%20from%20New%20Zealand%20-December%202015-%20-
%20Cabinet%20paper.pdf
So in practise, this is a US corporation operating on NZ soil through a subsidiary that also has to adhere to US laws, and some special conditions about access to launch vehicles for non-US citizens.
There is so much info on Rocket Lab out there in government filings and ministerial statements, I am amazed people don't find it. Even shareholder percentages are on the internet if you look carefully enough.
-
Tweet from Jeff Foust (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/762045631728717824)
Robin Sampson, Clyde Space: first Outernet cubesats to launch in December. Will broadcast in UHF with UK spectrum allocation. #smallsat
Tweet from Jeff Foust (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/762046747589824513)
Sampson: those initial Outernet cubesats will launch on the 2nd and 3rd Rocket Lab Electron missions late this year. #smallsat
-
What worries me about all this publicity is that RL have all these customers signed up but have yet to demonstrate even a single test flight of the rocket: could they end up a satellite-payload version of XCOR?
What if the first flight is a failure? The second? Third?? There are a zillion things that could go wrong. Do their customers all then run off to other providers with demonstrated runs on the board?? I do remember it took SpaceX three goes to get single successful launch and, although I hope they do, I'm not convinced people will put the same (or more) faith in the guys at Rocketlab.
If you look at what happened to Super Strypi and Falcon 1, a first failure with payload, while expected, leads to a dummy payload until the vehicle proves itself. Rocket Lab are the best of the bunch IMHO, and far ahead, but progress always slows down when you get to the actual launches.
Firstly, getting the first one off the ground ALWAYS takes longer. Right now I think they will be lucky to get even a sub-orb away before early 2017, based on progress of the launch site and susbsystems. We are in August already and they are showing fairing sep tests and launch site in a semi-finished state - while still saying "end of the year". It slips and slips, but this is normal.
Secondly there is almost certainly going to be a failure during early launches for one reason or another. That will lead to literally months if not years of delays while they analyze what went wrong and re-engineer and test the problem. This is what kills cashflow, as customers and investor dry up at this point, so making sure you have a full bank account prior to launch 1 is crucial. This consideration also is a factor in management decision to go/no go - it is a calculated risk based on readiness and cash.
They clearly want to launch in the antipodean Summer time - circa Dec-March, 3-4-5 months from now - but honestly I doubt they will make that, because all the usual human stuff like school summer holidays in December/Jan in Aus/NZ and just because they are not close enough to ready I think.
And that then pushes them out into New Zealand autumn and winter; the issue then is weather, as Mahia gets 70+ days a year with wind gusts above 63 kph, which is a Force 8 gale, most of them in autumn, spring and winter ie., March-November (https://www.niwa.co.nz/static/Hawkes%20Bay%20WEB.pdf pp15-17).
Even if you say your rocket handles significant loads, I think we can all agree that F8 gales - probably plus rain/sleet/snow, as the minimum monthly temps in winter are sub-zero degrees C - are not good launch conditions.
So if you then struggle to find a good launch window, you are hanging almost another year until Southern spring/summer 2017...
Anyway, I think again they are the most advanced and complete of the pack, but it's a long way from looking like a rocket to flying like one. I would put my money on late 2017 launch.
Most of those wind gusts will be for mid afternoon and later. Typically it is calmer in morning with wind building during day.
The launch site would be lucky to see snow once a decade and even then it wouldn't settle.
Not sure about Mahia but Napier side of Hawkes Bay has lot of calm clear days in winter.
-
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/762306398067699712
June 2017....
-
That is the ELaNa launch date, not the launch date of the first Electron.
-
That is the ELaNa launch date, not the launch date of the first Electron.
Perhaps his point was that the proposed launch was in winter?
-
Perhaps his point was that the proposed launch was in winter?
Yes it was this, although I personally think they will be lucky to get orbital before then in any case. And I say that without any ill-will whatsoever - it's just the way things go during this phase of operations, millions of tiny details. As far as I can see they don't yet have even an experimental launch licence, for example.
w.r.t weather, I remember Peter Beck saying they had specified Electron to withstand the local wind/weather loads on the pad, but I think wintery conditions makes it more marginal and slightly harder to plan a launch campaign in the usual manner. Another comment above pointed out that the weather changes over the day and very windy days are mixed with clear days - I accept this of course. The thing is that planning around the variable weather of the winter becomes more complex, and almost certainly creates delays in individual launch campaigns that then roll through the entire cadence.
-
Launch Platform has been installed at Mahia.
https://twitter.com/RocketLabUSA/status/766735820224995328
-
Which winter? They are launching from the Southern Hemisphere.
-
Which winter? They are launching from the Southern Hemisphere.
Southern winter. Next June.
AFAICT, they are still on track for a test launch of something late this year. What that "something" will be though is anyone's guess..
-
In addition to discussions with MARS and Space Florida, the following quote from Alaska Aerospace Corporation CEO:
Craig Campbell, AAC President and CEO, stated "With completion of this project, PSCA is ready to welcome new launches supporting both government and private sector companies." Over the past few months, AAC has signed a multi-year contract with the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) for multiple launches from the PSCA through 2021. AAC is also working with two private companies, Rocket Lab USA and Vector Space Systems, for commercial launches from PSCA as early as 2017.
LINK: http://akaerospace.com/news/pacific-spaceport-complex-alaska-rededication-and-return-launch-event
-
Rocket lab will need Alaska pad for DOD missions as I doubt DOD would be allow their payloads launched from NZ.
-
Rocket lab will need Alaska pad for DOD missions as I doubt DOD would be allow their payloads launched from NZ.
Maybe easier & cheaper to staged Electron polar launches from Launch Complex 576 at VAFB.
-
Rocket lab will need Alaska pad for DOD missions as I doubt DOD would be allow their payloads launched from NZ.
Maybe easier & cheaper to staged Electron polar launches from Launch Complex 576 at VAFB.
US PSCA launches will be retrograde orbits and SSO CCAFS launches will be fore US LEO and WFF is considered for high energy orbits. Discussions are ongoing with Space Florida and MARS
-
New Update article, video etc.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33141.msg1560147#msg1560147
-
Even if they don't make December for their first launch, presumably there are other somewhat exciting milestones that they need to go through before launch that they will be able to do once they have the pad set up - such as static test fires of the fully integrated first stage? Rocket Lab is one of the more exciting things going on in spaceflight right now.
Even if their first rocket fails, if they make it past stage separation and the second stage ignites successfully, I think their future will be safe, for now. Especially if they make it to orbit, even the wrong orbit, and even if something goes wrong while deploying the payload, I think their customers will actually have increased confidence - it's proof that the concepts involved are all valid and that they're close to making it work- just need to polish the design.
There are too many things that can go wrong for the first few launches to all go smoothly - even something that might seem trivial like fairing separation can cause snags.
What I hope we do not see, especially on the first flight, is a failure of the first stage whether by RUD or loss of guidance or whatever. I do however hope they are capitalized to recover from such a possibility.
-
An update:
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/28/rocket-lab-nears-completion-of-worlds-first-private-orbital-launch-site-in-new-zealand.html
-
Do they have downlink and/or tracking this time? ::)
-
Article saying they were not affected by the earthquake and everything is still on track.
http://spacenews.com/rocket-lab-launch-site-not-damaged-in-new-zealand-earthquake/
-
This quote is interesting. It possibly suggests that batteries will be ejected on the way up, to progressively save weight.
"Lithium batteries will be jettisoned, possibly into NZ water"
They are looking at resuseability.
"We are continuing to consider ways of recovering and reusing the vehicle to further reduce any potential environmental impacts."
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=11702310
-
This quote is interesting. It possibly suggests that batteries will be ejected on the way up, to progressively save weight.
"Lithium batteries will be jettisoned, possibly into NZ water"
They are looking at resuseability.
"We are continuing to consider ways of recovering and reusing the vehicle to further reduce any potential environmental impacts."
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=11702310
"tis interesting indeed and sounds like the NZ Gov'ment could get themselves into much hot water if they "permitted" uncontrolled dumping. Memories of the 'Rena' disaster are still fresh...
My take on their re-usability effort is a simple parachute recovery into the ocean for collection on a nice day by a borrowed fishing trawler... nothing terribly extraordinary and even then only after they get a few successes under their belts.
-
This quote is interesting. It possibly suggests that batteries will be ejected on the way up, to progressively save weight.
"Lithium batteries will be jettisoned, possibly into NZ water"
They are looking at resuseability.
"We are continuing to consider ways of recovering and reusing the vehicle to further reduce any potential environmental impacts."
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=11702310
I see it as the lithium battery raised concerns specifically and they were simply addressing it in their statement. I see no reason why the batteries will be jettisoned independently from the stage. The whole stage will be discarded, and lithium batteries are among the materials being jettisoned.
-
I see no reason why the batteries will be jettisoned independently from the stage. The whole stage will be discarded, and lithium batteries are among the materials being jettisoned.
As the batteries are used up, they are discarded during flight. For example, the battery pack could be split into four separate batteries during a two minute flight. After 30 seconds the first battery is empty and released, at one minute the second battery is empty and released and at 90 seconds the third battery is released. This means that less unnecessary mass is carried further into flight, increasing vehicle performance.
-
I see no reason why the batteries will be jettisoned independently from the stage. The whole stage will be discarded, and lithium batteries are among the materials being jettisoned.
As the batteries are used up, they are discarded during flight. For example, the battery pack could be split into four separate batteries during a two minute flight. After 30 seconds the first battery is empty and released, at one minute the second battery is empty and released and at 90 seconds the third battery is released. This means that less unnecessary mass is carried further into flight, increasing vehicle performance.
Is that what they said they're doing, or just an explanation for why it might be useful?
-
I see no reason why the batteries will be jettisoned independently from the stage. The whole stage will be discarded, and lithium batteries are among the materials being jettisoned.
As the batteries are used up, they are discarded during flight. For example, the battery pack could be split into four separate batteries during a two minute flight. After 30 seconds the first battery is empty and released, at one minute the second battery is empty and released and at 90 seconds the third battery is released. This means that less unnecessary mass is carried further into flight, increasing vehicle performance.
This staged jettisoning system would be even more effective for 2nd stage when it will burn for longer.
-
As the batteries are used up, they are discarded during flight. For example, the battery pack could be split into four separate batteries during a two minute flight. ..
Except for in applications like this, you likely actually do need the full battery to deliver the required power to run the pump. Specific power matters just as well as specific energy. You cant drop half the pack and still pull the full amps.
I'm pretty sure the mention in the article talks about batteries ending up in the ocean together with the expended stage, not being jettisoned, as it talks about kerosene and batteries in the same sentence.
-
Is that what they said they're doing, or just an explanation for why it might be useful?
Explanation of why it would be useful.
Except for in applications like this, you likely actually do need the full battery to deliver the required power to run the pump. Specific power matters just as well as specific energy. You cant drop half the pack and still pull the full amps.
Yes you're right. Let the total energy be E = P*T where P is power in Watts and T is time in seconds.
For a battery pack the power P = V*I where V is the total voltage and I is the total current in Amps.
Each battery has energy Eb = 3600*Vb*Ab where Vb is the battery voltage and Ab is the battery Amp hour rating (1 hour is 3600 seconds).
The maximum battery current Ib = C*Ab where C is the current rating multiplier.
We have E = T*V*I = T*Ns*Vb*Np*C*Ab where Ns is the number of batteries in series in each string and Np the number of parallel strings of batteries. Total number of batteries is
E/Eb = T*Ns*Vb*Np*C*Ab/(3600*Vb*Ab) = Ns*Np*T*C/3600
However, as we know the total number of batteries is Ns*Np, this means the optimal battery configuration requires T*C = 3600 (this is the equation to remember!).
For a first stage flight of 180 seconds (3 minutes), that would require a C rating of 20. Batteries of this C rating are available. See
http://www.all-battery.com/highcrateli-polymer.aspx
If we have two batteries operating at 90 seconds each, then the required C rating of each battery pack needs to double to 40. I couldn't find any batteries with that high a C rating. Maximum seems to be C = 25.
http://www.all-battery.com/25c2500mah222v6sli-polylipobatterypack.aspx
-
"tis interesting indeed and sounds like the NZ Gov'ment could get themselves into much hot water if they "permitted" uncontrolled dumping. Memories of the 'Rena' disaster are still fresh...
I know that you know what the "Rena disaster" is, but a link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rena_oil_spill) would help the rest of us.
US PSCA launches will be retrograde orbits and SSO CCAFS launches will be fore US LEO and WFF is considered for high energy orbits. Discussions are ongoing with Space Florida and MARS
Wow. Almost a quarter of the "words" in that sentence are acronyms. Impressive even for NSF.
And the stuff about sequentially discarding batteries is neat theory, but is not part of Rocketlabs's plan, is it?
Cheers!
-
For a first stage flight of 180 seconds (3 minutes), that would require a C rating of 20. Batteries of this C rating are available. See
http://www.all-battery.com/highcrateli-polymer.aspx
If we have two batteries operating at 90 seconds each, then the required C rating of each battery pack needs to double to 40. I couldn't find any batteries with that high a C rating. Maximum seems to be C = 25.
http://www.all-battery.com/25c2500mah222v6sli-polylipobatterypack.aspx
Yep, this is exactly what I found when trying to make pack sizing calculations, 25C is the highest rated discharge rate you see advertised, and 20C is what you need for the first stage. It seems like the second stage is the place where ejecting batteries might make sense, it's a much longer burn of only a single engine.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37308.msg1359831#msg1359831 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37308.msg1359831#msg1359831)
-
If we have two batteries operating at 90 seconds each, then the required C rating of each battery pack needs to double to 40. I couldn't find any batteries with that high a C rating. Maximum seems to be C = 25.
You can actually find cell designs that are able to withstand higher C ratings quite well, for short periods as you are dealing with temperature rise and cooling issues too. It does shorten the cycle life, but that would be irrelevant for this app anyway. But packs are normally engineered for both capacity and power rating together, designing a pack that could split like this sounds like unnecessary level of complexity and risk.
It seems like the second stage is the place where ejecting batteries might make sense, it's a much longer burn of only a single engine.
Long burn at much lower power being the key. But still, you'd have ejection mechanisms that would add weight, potential GN&C stability issues, further pack engineering constraints for making it modular ..
-
And the stuff about sequentially discarding batteries is neat theory, but is not part of Rocketlabs's plan, is it?
It's interesting to read this here as I heard the same story - that they will jettison batteries en route, and not just as part of the S1 sep - privately about two months ago. I can't confirm it, it's just something I heard at a conference. It does make sense from a delta-V point of view, but it's more complexity.
The whole electric turbopump angle is interesting but only works for engines of this scale. They have locked themselves into a certain technical approach / solution that has engineering advantages but performance tradeoffs in terms of inert mass and long term scalabilty of the solution. The energy density is the main issue.
-
Is that what they said they're doing, or just an explanation for why it might be useful?
Explanation of why it would be useful.
Except for in applications like this, you likely actually do need the full battery to deliver the required power to run the pump. Specific power matters just as well as specific energy. You cant drop half the pack and still pull the full amps.
Yes you're right. Let the total energy be E = P*T where P is power in Watts and T is time in seconds.
For a battery pack the power P = V*I where V is the total voltage and I is the total current in Amps.
Each battery has energy Eb = 3600*Vb*Ab where Vb is the battery voltage and Ab is the battery Amp hour rating (1 hour is 3600 seconds).
The maximum battery current Ib = C*Ab where C is the current rating multiplier.
We have E = T*V*I = T*Ns*Vb*Np*C*Ab where Ns is the number of batteries in series in each string and Np the number of parallel strings of batteries. Total number of batteries is
E/Eb = T*Ns*Vb*Np*C*Ab/(3600*Vb*Ab) = Ns*Np*T*C/3600
However, as we know the total number of batteries is Ns*Np, this means the optimal battery configuration requires T*C = 3600 (this is the equation to remember!).
For a first stage flight of 180 seconds (3 minutes), that would require a C rating of 20. Batteries of this C rating are available. See
http://www.all-battery.com/highcrateli-polymer.aspx
If we have two batteries operating at 90 seconds each, then the required C rating of each battery pack needs to double to 40. I couldn't find any batteries with that high a C rating. Maximum seems to be C = 25.
http://www.all-battery.com/25c2500mah222v6sli-polylipobatterypack.aspx
I am quoting all because I liked your post.
I think what this means is that they are energy density limited by this solution. Unless battery tech improves to increase the density from the same number (ie., mass) of batteries, they can't energize larger pumps to feed fuel to much larger engines without a quite serious mass penalty. This probably means they need to move to old school turbopumps if the vehicle is to evolve.
-
I think what this means is that they are energy density limited by this solution. Unless battery tech improves to increase the density from the same number (ie., mass) of batteries, they can't energize larger pumps to feed fuel to much larger engines without a quite serious mass penalty. This probably means they need to move to old school turbopumps if the vehicle is to evolve.
That's been the consistent opinion -- electric pumps only work out for small engines because it's difficult and expensive to design really small gas turbines for conventional turbopumps. It might not be any more difficult or expensive than designing a large turbine, but if the cost doesn't scale down with engine size it becomes a problem. Even in this application the batteries are on the edge of being worth it -- weight of the PT6A turboshaft engine is given as 122kg and there is a version of that which has output over 1MW. Of course you need a generator too. If it only needs to run 3 minutes, SFC is given as 0.408 kg/kW*hr which amounts to about 20kg of fuel. It would need to be made to work on RP-1+GOX. Of course it's likely batteries are at least one order of magnitude cheaper than this, possibly two (comparing using a PT6+generator vs a big pile of batteries).
-
Of course it's likely batteries are at least one order of magnitude cheaper than this, possibly two (comparing using a PT6+generator vs a big pile of batteries).
Its not just that a cost of buying or manufacturing a well engineered battery pack is much lower, but operational cost of building and testing rockets with electric pumps will likely work out much lower.
And suppliers, engineering services and available talent for power electronics are somewhat more widely available than turbo-machinery, so ongoing iterations and improvements can likely be done at lower cost. For a startup, this can make all the difference in actually closing their business case. Once on the path of scaling up the company the equation might change.
-
For some of smaller LV <$50kg that are using pressure fed engines, electric pumps make logic next step. Even more so if there is an off the shelf electric motor/battery combination available.
I'd be surprised if Rocket labs, suppliers weren't already pushing there wares with other LV startups.
-
For some of smaller LV <50kg that are using pressure fed engines, electric pumps make logic next step. Even more so if there is an off the shelf electric motor/battery combination available.
I'd be surprised if Rocket labs, suppliers weren't already pushing there wares with other LV startups.
RocketLabs aren't the only ones doing electro-pumped rockets. Ventions has been working on them since before I left Masten to start Altius in 2010. It's a generally good idea, but would really be augmented if someone could figure out a lightweight, efficient way of tapping a tiny bit of jet power in an MHD generator. I saw some good ideas on how to potentially make that work, but not running a rocket company, I've never had a chance to try them.
~Jon
-
For some of smaller LV <50kg that are using pressure fed engines, electric pumps make logic next step. Even more so if there is an off the shelf electric motor/battery combination available.
I'd be surprised if Rocket labs, suppliers weren't already pushing there wares with other LV startups.
RocketLabs aren't the only ones doing electro-pumped rockets. Ventions has been working on them since before I left Masten to start Altius in 2010. It's a generally good idea, but would really be augmented if someone could figure out a lightweight, efficient way of tapping a tiny bit of jet power in an MHD generator. I saw some good ideas on how to potentially make that work, but not running a rocket company, I've never had a chance to try them.
~Jon
Uh .. i thought that this would be completely way out there, but because there are hypersonics weap^H^H^H flight research programs of course someone has tried something like this:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.5370/JICEE.2014.4.3.192
"Comparison of Generator Performance of Small-Scale MHD Generators with Different Electrode Dispositions and Load Connection Systems"
-
For some of smaller LV <50kg that are using pressure fed engines, electric pumps make logic next step. Even more so if there is an off the shelf electric motor/battery combination available.
I'd be surprised if Rocket labs, suppliers weren't already pushing there wares with other LV startups.
RocketLabs aren't the only ones doing electro-pumped rockets. Ventions has been working on them since before I left Masten to start Altius in 2010. It's a generally good idea, but would really be augmented if someone could figure out a lightweight, efficient way of tapping a tiny bit of jet power in an MHD generator. I saw some good ideas on how to potentially make that work, but not running a rocket company, I've never had a chance to try them.
~Jon
Uh .. i thought that this would be completely way out there, but because there are hypersonics weap^H^H^H flight research programs of course someone has tried something like this:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.5370/JICEE.2014.4.3.192
"Comparison of Generator Performance of Small-Scale MHD Generators with Different Electrode Dispositions and Load Connection Systems"
The work I was looking at was some old Soviet research I stumbled on a few years ago. Very clever, but when the USSR collapsed, that line of research more or less ground to a halt and disbanded. Very different than any of the concepts from that paper. Potentially a lot more relevant for MHD power extraction in a rocket nozzle, the challenge is just keeping the jet conductivity high enough to extract a useful amount of power. You'd only need 0.25-0.5% of the jet power to get enough power to run staged-combustion equivalent chamber pressures....
but this is only tangentially related to RocketLabs, which while using electric pump-fed rockets, didn't sound like they were looking for anything fancier. They just want to get their rocket into revenue service.
~Jon
-
......
but this is only tangentially related to RocketLabs, which while using electric pump-fed rockets, didn't sound like they were looking for anything fancier. They just want to get their rocket into revenue service.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves, shall we? First they have to get it off the pad in one piece.
-
If we have two batteries operating at 90 seconds each, then the required C rating of each battery pack needs to double to 40. I couldn't find any batteries with that high a C rating. Maximum seems to be C = 25.
Just to show that this exists : one source (https://www.amainhobbies.com/protek-rc-1s-100c-hard-case-lipo-battery-pack-4mm-3.7v-7400mah-ptk-5105-16/p476515) . second source (http://www.atomikrc.com/collections/venom-lipo-batteries/products/venom-100c-2s-7200mah-7-4v-lipo-battery-hard-case-roar-approved-with-uni-plug). A123 LiFePO cells were kind of the first to market with insane discharge rates, but others have followed, and pack construction and engineering has kind of evolved slowly too.
EDIT: and of course, there are people out there that review and test these things for living. A shootout between some high powered battery packs :
http://www.bigsquidrc.com/lipo-battery-shootout-4-voltage-under-load/
They are of course more inefficent and lose capacity under heavy load, but demonstrably you can pull pretty insane amps from them for short time.
-
......
but this is only tangentially related to RocketLabs, which while using electric pump-fed rockets, didn't sound like they were looking for anything fancier. They just want to get their rocket into revenue service.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves, shall we? First they have to get it off the pad in one piece.
And then track it so they can prove it reached space ;-)
-
And now, for something completely different
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/84057531/Airways-hopes-Rocket-Lab-launch-will-be-first-of-many
State-owned Airways and New Zealand space company Rocket Lab and have signed a deal to ensure regular rocket launches from the country can be safe.
The agreement would see Airways provide air traffic services for Rocket Lab's test and commercial rocket launches from the world's first private orbital launch site on Mahia Peninsula, on the East Coast south of Gisborne
Airways chief operating officer Pauline Lamb said the agreement provided Rocket Lab with another piece to its rocket puzzle.
The two organisations had worked together for 18 months to develop a "special use airspace" which minimised impact on others, but still allowed Rocket Labs what it wanted to do.
-
Whatever is being sold, I'd buy this just because of accent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwBLE0Nbnao
-
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
EDIT: Some interesting details in those images, I don't think they realized they were showing the failed engine store...
(http://i.imgur.com/pv2eScC.jpg)
Also the engine serial number are interesting as I think they are by year e.g. 1513 = 2015 #13 and 1668 = 2016 #68. So - if that is correct, and it's not just the sequence # of the next part off the printer - by mid-April this year they had produced ~68 3D printed engine chambers, roughly 20 a month. I know they work with Arcam, so if they have 2-3 Arcam Q20 machines that sounds about right, each chamber will be a 3 day print approximately. Also makes sense since they need 10 per vehicle plus numerous test/demo articles.
Also is that a battery module is shown as a separate unit? Or is it an interstage?
(http://i.imgur.com/ywW8agj.jpg)
-
RocketLab have signed a contract (http://www.mbie.govt.nz/about/whats-happening/news/2016/govt-signs-contract-authorising-rocket-lab-launches) with the NZ government to authorise the initial test launches;
Rocket Lab, a US-domiciled company founded by New Zealander Peter Beck, intends to start its launch operations from the Mahia Peninsula later this year. These operations will include the first commercial space launches from New Zealand.
The contract with Rocket Lab is an important milestone in the development of a New Zealand-based space industry.
It is an interim measure to allow Rocket Lab to commence launching rockets before the Bill establishing a regulatory regime comes into force.
The Outer Space and High Altitude Activities Bill is expected to be introduced into The House on 22 September and the Government will be seeking to have it passed into law by mid-2017. The Bill facilitates the development of a space industry and its safe and secure operation that meets our international obligations, including the Technology Safeguards Agreement (TSA), recently signed with the United States.
The TSA is a bilateral treaty between the New Zealand and United States Governments to enable the use and secure management of US rocket and satellite technology in New Zealand. It allows commercial entities, including Rocket Lab, to import launch technology and satellites from the US. In terms of its broader international obligations, New Zealand is committed to the peaceful and responsible use of space.
The contract provides the mechanism by which to authorise Rocket Lab’s space activities to be conducted from New Zealand; to manage Government’s liability under the United Nations Liability Convention, and to implement New Zealand's obligations under the TSA, enabling it to enter into force.
The contract is consistent with the draft Bill. Once the Bill becomes law, Rocket Lab will transition to the new regime and the Government can choose to terminate the contract.
Before launching, Rocket Lab needs to obtain a license from the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) so it can conduct its space launch activities in New Zealand.
-
this is interesting, maybe Jim -others can chime in on this...
Can be encapsulated by the customer, is this new?
-
Can be encapsulated by the customer, is this new?
No, not new, but it shows that military/intelligence applications are in the busines plan.
-
Before launching, Rocket Lab needs to obtain a license from the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) so it can conduct its space launch activities in New Zealand.
I said a this a few weeks ago - they are still some way away from launch if they do not have a launch licence yet, and there is nothing on the active list:-
https://www.faa.gov/data_research/commercial_space_data/licenses/
Note that the launch site operation itself will need a licence as well, so that is two processes. I doubt they could get a license until it was fully equipped.
-
Before launching, Rocket Lab needs to obtain a license from the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) so it can conduct its space launch activities in New Zealand.
I said a this a few weeks ago - they are still some way away from launch if they do not have a launch licence yet, and there is nothing on the active list:-
https://www.faa.gov/data_research/commercial_space_data/licenses/
Note that the launch site operation itself will need a licence as well, so that is two processes. I doubt they could get a license until it was fully equipped.
Why would they need an FAA license to launch from New Zealand?
- Ed Kyle
-
Why would they need an FAA license to launch from New Zealand?
Rocket Lab are now a US company, and the range is actually a US range operating on NZ soil under US regulations as part of the TSA (Technology Safeguards Agreement) signed by the NZ government.
Because they are now a US company, the USA has control of the range, operations, launcher and payload regulation and licencing, as well as ITAR/EAR/MTCR jurisdiction on US parts/tech/know-how (it had that in any case as ITAR follows the parts).
Here's some detail on the TSA between NZ and USA:-
https://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-NZ/00DBSCH_ITR_69357_1/a547a574617eef61024ddd01b00c797a1f01229a
And the actual agreement:
http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/sectors-industries/space/pdf-library/technology-safeguards-agreement-US.pdf
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.
There are some tough clauses on access control in there:
The Government of New Zealand shall permit N.Z. Representatives to participate in unloading vehicles transporting U.S. Launch Vehicles, U.S. Spacecraft, Related Equipment or Technical Data, and delivering sealed containers to the segregated areas referred to in Article IV, paragraph 3 and to the U.S. Launch Vehicle and U.S. Spacecraft preparation areas only if they are under the supervision of U.S. Participants. The Government of New Zealand shall not permit N.Z. Representatives access to the segregated areas referred to in Article IV, paragraph 3 or to the U.S. Launch Vehicle or U.S. Spacecraft preparation areas for any purpose while U.S. Launch Vehicles, U.S. Spacecraft, or any Related Equipment is being assembled, installed, tested, prepared and/or integrated unless they are escorted at all times by U.S. Participants or are specially authorized by the Government of the United States of America
This basically means even Peter Beck can't see his vehicles unsupervised unless he naturalizes or gets "special authorization".
Electron is a US launch vehicle, even if assembled in NZ; in the slide deck it says the HQ is in USA. Big chunks are made in the USA and major ITAR-controlled components probably come from there too. Beck had little choice but to become a US corporation to get the Silicon Valley VC money and the key components, like LOX-tolerant CFRP which comes from TenCate, a US corporation, or a FOG.
By the way I have zero connection to RL, you can find all this and much more on the internet.
-
delete this if its old....
A Career at Rocket Lab
https://youtu.be/1XZ1SpEEZ0c
-
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.
- Ed Kyle
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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:
(http://i.imgur.com/etM4x0V.png)
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:
(http://i.imgur.com/XneJauJ.png)
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:-
(http://i.imgur.com/BttR3IO.png)
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:-
(http://i.imgur.com/vqc0cfq.png)
*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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
Electron? Why not name it something more interesting like Thorondor, lord of the Eagles in Middle Earth during the First Age?
-
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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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 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
-
Electron? Why not name it something more interesting like Thorondor, lord of the Eagles in Middle Earth during the First Age?
Electrons are much smaller than Protons. One of the biggest vehicles on the market is the failure prone Russian Proton Launcher. It is fitting a relatively tiny launcher that uses batteries to power its pumps should be called Electron.
Although, I would totally dig it if they named it Uruk-hai with a rough white hand insignia elmblazoned on the side!
-
Electron? Why not name it something more interesting like Thorondor, lord of the Eagles in Middle Earth during the First Age?
Electrons are much smaller than Protons. One of the biggest vehicles on the market is the failure prone Russian Proton Launcher. It is fitting a relatively tiny launcher that uses batteries to power its pumps should be called Electron.
Although, I would totally dig it if they named it Uruk-hai Orthanc with a rough white hand insignia elmblazoned on the side!
Fix that for you. ;)
The Electron is a black cylinder after all.
-
Since KSC's pad 39C is being shared with Firefly, is there any news on how the mobile launcher is going on either side (Firefly or Rocket Lab)? Rocket Lab is planning an early 2017 launch for the Venture class contract; is there appropriate infrastructure available to go ahead with the launch? From what I can find, the pad only supports methane and not RP-1.
-
All that is public knowledge at this point is:
1. Rocketlab are building a launch pad at Mahia in New Zealand.
2. Current manufacturing facilities are located in Airpark Drive, Auckland.
3. They plan test flights from Mahia starting no earlier than December this year.
4. Mission Control for these (and maybe other) flights is located across the road from the manufacturing center.
5. Peter Beck has grand plans.
So, if and when they do anything at Pad 39C is anyone's guess, but one thing is for certain: they have to launch a rocket or two from the North Island of New Zealand first...
https://vimeo.com/179507781
https://rocketlabusa.com/rocket-lab-launch-site-nears-completion-ahead-of-test-launches/ (https://rocketlabusa.com/rocket-lab-launch-site-nears-completion-ahead-of-test-launches/)
-
Electron? Why not name it something more interesting like Thorondor, lord of the Eagles in Middle Earth during the First Age?
Electrons are much smaller than Protons. One of the biggest vehicles on the market is the failure prone Russian Proton Launcher. It is fitting a relatively tiny launcher that uses batteries to power its pumps should be called Electron.
Although, I would totally dig it if they named it Uruk-hai Orthanc with a rough white hand insignia elmblazoned on the side!
Fix that for you. ;)
The Electron is a black cylinder after all.
Rocket Launch or Barad Dur? You decide.
-
Electron? Why not name it something more interesting like Thorondor, lord of the Eagles in Middle Earth during the First Age?
Electrons are much smaller than Protons. One of the biggest vehicles on the market is the failure prone Russian Proton Launcher. It is fitting a relatively tiny launcher that uses batteries to power its pumps should be called Electron.
Although, I would totally dig it if they named it Uruk-hai Orthanc with a rough white hand insignia elmblazoned on the side!
Fix that for you. ;)
The Electron is a black cylinder after all.
Rocket Launch or Barad Dur? You decide.
That will require the change of the livery from a rough white hand to an unblinking red eye. ;D
-
The claim I to which I was responding was that "big chunks" of Electron's propulsion was developed in the United States.
Again, that is not what was said.
Firstly, I said "made". You said "developed". Those are not equivalent words.
Secondly, the company itself, who I quoted and who probably know more about what they are doing internally that you or I, says propulsion is "manufactured" in the USA. "Made" and "manufactured" are equivalent words.
Feel free to research those things yourself.
-
Electron? Why not name it something more interesting like Thorondor, lord of the Eagles in Middle Earth during the First Age?
Electrons are much smaller than Protons. One of the biggest vehicles on the market is the failure prone Russian Proton Launcher. It is fitting a relatively tiny launcher that uses batteries to power its pumps should be called Electron.
Although, I would totally dig it if they named it Uruk-hai Orthanc with a rough white hand insignia elmblazoned on the side!
Fix that for you. ;)
The Electron is a black cylinder after all.
Rocket Launch or Barad Dur? You decide.
That will require the change of the livery from a rough white hand to an unblinking red eye. ;D
That will require the change of the livery from a rough white hand to an unblinking red eye. ;D
By "rough white hand", I assume you're referring to the Silver Fern marking on the tail end of the rocket?!?
...
It is a reply to @Darkseraph on his post about naming the Electron as Uruk-hai in jest with a rough white hand insignia. Which is the symbol of Saruman's forces in the Middle-Earth tales. Didn't you watch any of the Lord of the Rings movie? ???
-
The claim I to which I was responding was that "big chunks" of Electron's propulsion was developed in the United States.
Again, that is not what was said.
Firstly, I said "made". You said "developed". Those are not equivalent words.
The answer is the same for both words.
Secondly, the company itself, who I quoted and who probably know more about what they are doing internally that you or I, says propulsion is "manufactured" in the USA. "Made" and "manufactured" are equivalent words.
Feel free to research those things yourself.
I have. Please show me a photo of Rocket Lab actually manufacturing something, anything, in the United States. We have seen photos and videos of engines and other hardware built and tested in New Zealand.
- Ed Kyle
-
The claim I to which I was responding was that "big chunks" of Electron's propulsion was developed in the United States.
Again, that is not what was said.
Firstly, I said "made". You said "developed". Those are not equivalent words.
The answer is the same for both words.
Secondly, the company itself, who I quoted and who probably know more about what they are doing internally that you or I, says propulsion is "manufactured" in the USA. "Made" and "manufactured" are equivalent words.
Feel free to research those things yourself.
I have. Please show me a photo of Rocket Lab actually manufacturing something, anything, in the United States. We have seen photos and videos of engines and other hardware built and tested in New Zealand.
- Ed Kyle
IT. DOESN'T. MATTER. They have chosen to make themselves a U.S. based company, so your original disbelief that they were under the jurisdiction of the FAA has been corrected. Why keep moving the goalposts?
-
IT. DOESN'T. MATTER. They have chosen to make themselves a U.S. based company, so your original disbelief that they were under the jurisdiction of the FAA has been corrected. Why keep moving the goalposts?
I understand the FAA thing. It is bureaucracy doing that thing that it does.
What matters, to me, is correctly categorizing this launch vehicle. New Zealanders should, and certainly will, celebrate it as a historic New Zealand achievement. I'm hoping that Electron will not insult them by only sporting a giant American flag as shown in the drawings. I'm also hoping that reporters won't be fooled by the corporate publicity effort and call this an "American" launch vehicle in their stories.
- Ed Kyle
-
IT. DOESN'T. MATTER. They have chosen to make themselves a U.S. based company, so your original disbelief that they were under the jurisdiction of the FAA has been corrected. Why keep moving the goalposts?
I understand the FAA thing. It is bureaucracy doing that thing that it does.
What matters, to me, is correctly categorizing this launch vehicle. New Zealanders should, and certainly will, celebrate it as a historic New Zealand achievement. I'm hoping that Electron will not insult them by only sporting a giant American flag as shown in the drawings. I'm also hoping that reporters won't be fooled by the corporate publicity effort and call this an "American" launch vehicle in their stories.
- Ed Kyle
If you have some proof that this is not an American company, with US headquarters, majority owned by US corporations or US nationals, launching a US vehicle, containing ITAR-controlled US technology, from a US-controlled range under US FAA regulation, requiring a US launch licence, and staffed exclusively by US citizens or foreign nationals approved at the sole discretion of the US government, please go ahead and post it.
If not, please stop being silly.
-
Most of their people are in Auckland. They call NZ operations a 'subsidiary' in official docs for a while now. In NZ press, they are a NZ company though.
http://imgur.com/xtNPnvJ
-
You guys are missing my point. It isn't about where the HQ is located. It is about the rocket itself.
- Ed Kyle
-
You guys are missing my point. It isn't about where the HQ is located. It is about the rocket itself.
- Ed Kyle
The rocket itself and people that build it - and will operate it - are all in NZ, no question.
-
The rocket itself and people that build it - and will operate it - are all in NZ, no question.
I think that was once true, but isn't any longer (posting more than 60 days old now):-
(http://i.imgur.com/3YBDVU8.jpg)
-
It is a New Zealand rocket that is trying to look American so it can compete for NASA business.
NASA’s Launch Services Program (LSP) has awarded multiple Venture Class Launch Services (VCLS) contracts to provide small satellites (SmallSats) -- also called CubeSats, microsats or nanosatellites -- access to low-Earth orbit.
The three companies selected to provide these new commercial launch capabilities, and the value of their firm fixed-price contracts, are:
Firefly Space Systems Inc. of Cedar Park, Texas, $5.5 million
Rocket Lab USA Inc. of Los Angeles, $6.9 million
Virgin Galactic LLC of Long Beach, California, $4.7 million
http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-awards-venture-class-launch-services-contracts-for-cubesat-satellites
Wow, look at that, U.S. tax dollars going to support american companies to be more competitive on the global marketplace. They even have USA in the name. How patriotic.
-
It is a New Zealand rocket that is trying to look American so it can compete for NASA business.
Actually they are now majority US-owned. The NZ shareholders are a minority.
What has actually happened is that all the NZ tax dollars that went into Rocket Lab will now be milked, in large part, for the benefit of US shareholders and US taxpayers. For example, the Callaghan Innovation Grant they got which I believe was $10m over two years (http://www.callaghaninnovation.govt.nz/annual-report-2016/rocket-lab) came just before they became formally American.
Now that their technology is ripe for plucking, it will be delivering around NZ$400-NZ$1B in economic benefits (this is an official number from an official NZ govt. economic impact report on Rocket Lab you can find on the web if you look), a lot of which will flow to the majority shareholders in the US, including Lockheed Martin, Bessemer, and Khosla Ventures. The shareholdings are also on the web for free if you know how to look - in fact Peter Beck has complained to the source of the info about it being there.
You can also confirm they have a majority US holding as they got this SBIR award:-
https://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/872331
And as I am sure you know the criteria for SBIR qualification are as follows:
The majority (more than 50%) of your firms' equity (e.g. stock) is directly owned and controlled by one of the following:-
- One or more individuals who are citizens or permanent resident alien of the U.S.
- Other for-profit small business concerns (each of which is directly owned and controlled individuals who are citizens or permanent resident alien of the U.S.)
- A combination of (1) and (2).
- Multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, private equity firms, or any combination of these, so long as no one such firm owns or controls more than 50% of the equity.
-
http://imgur.com/xtNPnvJ
That image is great.
First it lists two different founding dates, 2007 and 2008, when it was actually founded in 2006:-
Company number: 1835428
NZ Business Number: 9429034019108
Incorporation Date: 29 Jun 2006
Company Status: Registered
Entity type: NZ Limited Company
Hence the celebration of 10 years just recently.
Then it says Rocket Lab is headquartered in Los Angeles in the text, only to go on to state the HQ is in New Zealand in the footer data.
Is that from LinkedIn?
-
This discussion about whether Rocketlab is a New Zealand or US company doesn't recognize how multinational corporations work.
Sometimes for tax or regulation reasons it is beneficial for a corporation to create a totally new corporation in another country. These two corporate entities are legally separate, they just happen to be owned by the same people. With the same people running both corporations, obviously they will cooperate with each other. However, they may open themselves up to regulation by government agencies such as the FAA.
In this case ITAR may have had something to do with it.
It's complicated corporate law in two different countries and really is off topic.
What's important here from a NSF point of view is that Rocketlab is building a new rocket.
-
What's important here from a NSF point of view is that Rocketlab is building a new rocket.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11715402
According to the news article, they currently are producing three vehicles concurrently, all three at different levels of completion. Their launch date is set at 3 months from now.
-
I do wonder how they are going get on launching over December January holiday period. Mahia is popular holiday destination with lot of boaties and fishermen. Keeping downrange clear of boats maybe a mission especially as lot of boats won't have radios turned on if they have one.
Picking a windy day would be their best bet. Anything over 20knots should keep most boats off the water.
-
I do wonder how they are going get on launching over December January holiday period. Mahia is popular holiday destination with lot of boaties and fishermen. Keeping downrange clear of boats maybe a mission especially as lot of boats won't have radios turned on if they have one.
Picking a windy day would be their best bet. Anything over 20knots should keep most boats off the water.
That is the first time I've ever heard that in the context of a rocket launch!
Range safety won't even be practiced in how to track and deter boats. Whether they keep that time-frame or not, multiple delays for this and other reasons will not be surprising.
-
I think what this means is that they are energy density limited by this solution. Unless battery tech improves to increase the density from the same number (ie., mass) of batteries, they can't energize larger pumps to feed fuel to much larger engines without a quite serious mass penalty. This probably means they need to move to old school turbopumps if the vehicle is to evolve.
That's been the consistent opinion -- electric pumps only work out for small engines because it's difficult and expensive to design really small gas turbines for conventional turbopumps. It might not be any more difficult or expensive than designing a large turbine, but if the cost doesn't scale down with engine size it becomes a problem. Even in this application the batteries are on the edge of being worth it -- weight of the PT6A turboshaft engine is given as 122kg and there is a version of that which has output over 1MW. Of course you need a generator too. If it only needs to run 3 minutes, SFC is given as 0.408 kg/kW*hr which amounts to about 20kg of fuel. It would need to be made to work on RP-1+GOX. Of course it's likely batteries are at least one order of magnitude cheaper than this, possibly two (comparing using a PT6+generator vs a big pile of batteries).
On this topic, why would they hire a guy with a turbomachinery background into Propulsion? Is something changing?
(http://i.imgur.com/YA0aDgX.png)
-
A turbine pump is still turbomachinery even if it's electrically driven.
-
A turbine pump is still turbomachinery even if it's electrically driven.
This is something I find sort of inconsistent. Are axial and centrifugal pumps considered turbomachinery?
-
A turbine pump is still turbomachinery even if it's electrically driven.
This is something I find sort of inconsistent. Are axial and centrifugal pumps considered turbomachinery?
Anything that transfers energy between a rotor and a fluid. Pumps transfer energy from a rotor to the fluid. While turbines do the opposite.
-
A turbine pump is still turbomachinery even if it's electrically driven.
This is something I find sort of inconsistent. Are axial and centrifugal pumps considered turbomachinery?
How is it inconsistent?
To reiterate the person above me, the standard understanding of "turbomachinery" includes both turbines AND pumps:
"Turbomachinery, in mechanical engineering, describes machines that transfer energy between a rotor and a fluid, including both turbines and compressors."
-
A turbine pump is still turbomachinery even if it's electrically driven.
This is something I find sort of inconsistent. Are axial and centrifugal pumps considered turbomachinery?
How is it inconsistent?
To reiterate the person above me, the standard understanding of "turbomachinery" includes both turbines AND pumps:
"Turbomachinery, in mechanical engineering, describes machines that transfer energy between a rotor and a fluid, including both turbines and compressors."
Besides, "turbomachinery" sounds so much cooler on a CV than "pump"... :)
-
https://rocketlabusa.com/rocket-lab-launch-complex-1-ready-for-launches/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rl3L9tyStsg
Rocket Lab is pleased to announce the completion of the world’s first private orbital launch complex, Launch Complex 1.
Located on New Zealand’s Mahia Peninsula, Launch Complex 1 is set to enable the highest frequency of space launches in history. The facility will be the primary site for launches of Rocket Lab’s Electron vehicle, designed to lift a 150 kg payload to a 500 km sun-synchronous orbit.
New Zealand’s remote island location and low volume of marine and air traffic create ideal conditions for frequent launch opportunities. In addition, launches from the site can access a uniquely wide range of orbital inclinations – from 39 degrees through sun-synchronous.
Facilities at Launch Complex 1 include a vehicle processing hangar where the vehicle will be prepared for launch as well as a 50 tonne launch platform. The platform will tilt forward to lift the rocket to a vertical position prior to launch.
Satellites launched from the complex will be used to provide services including optimized crop monitoring, improved weather reporting, internet from space, natural disaster prediction, up-to-date maritime data and search and rescue services.
Rocket Lab has completed major milestones this year with the qualification of the 3D printed Rutherford engine, qualification of the second stage of the Electron rocket and the development of major infrastructure including remote tracking, test facilities and the launch site. The company is currently working through the qualification of the first stage of the Electron rocket and will look to begin the test flight phase once qualification and launch licencing are complete.
-
http://www.newshub.co.nz/nznews/new-zealand-to-become-space-leader-with-new-launch-site-2016092719
-
https://youtu.be/wmhj-xUrA2g
-
That is a stunning place to be. Almost edging Tanegashima for the most beautiful launch site location in the planet..
-
Looks like Rocket Lab may have filed a bunch of patents:-
https://www.baldwins.com/our-work/case-studies/rocket-lab-ltd-affordable-high-frequency-launches-for-satellites
-
Looks like Rocket Lab may have filed a bunch of patents:-
https://www.baldwins.com/our-work/case-studies/rocket-lab-ltd-affordable-high-frequency-launches-for-satellites
Given the US/NZ partnership they have set up and what they are trying to achieve, that isn't surprising: that's where the real money is.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmhj-xUrA2g
Yet another sunny day in the North Island... and it's nice to see nothing, NOTHING, affects Peter's hairdo! ;D
It's also nice to see they're still on track for a test launch by the end of the year.
-
I do wonder how many days of good weather (low winds) per year you can expect at such a scenic location, though.
But I'm impressed by the progress so far. :) (And Peter, get a hair cut!) ;)
-
Two recent articles on RocketLab:
(1) paywalled: they are considering how to ramp up manufacturing - through automation or hiring more people:
http://www.defensedaily.com/rocket-lab-debating-best-ramp-up-production-approach-hands-on-or-automated (http://www.defensedaily.com/rocket-lab-debating-best-ramp-up-production-approach-hands-on-or-automated)
(2) mentioning the political machinations within the NZ government to enable regulation of space launching. Tucked in there is a mention of road closures near their complex between November 17th and December 24th, and a mention at least that their first test launch will happen before Christmas.
http://gisborneherald.co.nz/localnews/2517537-135/bill-to-help-others-follow-in (http://gisborneherald.co.nz/localnews/2517537-135/bill-to-help-others-follow-in)
-
Looks like a road trip to Mahia before Christmas is called for. Hope it is weekend launch as I'm short on leave.
-
Good article from Space.com, nothing really new.
http://www.space.com/34364-rocket-lab-small-satellite-launch-race.html
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Check out the date on that article - August 2015.
Ah, I missed the 2015, thought it was this summer. Deleted.
-
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?
-
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.
-
..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.
-
..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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Looking forward to the first launch.
As are we all.. :)
Not long to wait.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (https://www.sprsa.org/), dedicated rideshare is dedicated rideshare (http://www.satmagazine.com/story.php?number=1361246732).
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.
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'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 (https://www.sprsa.org/), dedicated rideshare is dedicated rideshare (http://www.satmagazine.com/story.php?number=1361246732).
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/25355759@N07/albums/72157673767011290)
-
Cool photos, just need LV on the pad even if it is just ground tests.
-
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
-
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.
-
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:-
(http://i.imgur.com/5TLGlLA.jpg)
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
It's mostly that in that scale and class they are quite a pain to store securely, handle safely, transport, and ultimately initiate. Disposal is also controlled. Just from the images I have seen of the inside of RL I don't think they are setup to handle those materials, at least not in that facility. If I was them I would stick to liquids - they have knowledge and experience and it's a lot less heavily controlled - kerosene and lox are readily available and don't need the same kind of licenses.
-
So the million dollar question (TM): what works do they still need to do before they can stage an actual launch? It doesn't look like they can even do a static test fire yet and looking at SpaceX's experience of F1 it doesn't look like they can fly within the next 4-6 months. Probably not later than that though. ;)
-
So the million dollar question (TM): what works do they still need to do before they can stage an actual launch? It doesn't look like they can even do a static test fire yet and looking at SpaceX's experience of F1 it doesn't look like they can fly within the next 4-6 months. Probably not later than that though. ;)
Well I had a long list of things a couple of months ago:
If you look at what happened to Super Strypi and Falcon 1, a first failure with payload, while expected, leads to a dummy payload until the vehicle proves itself. Rocket Lab are the best of the bunch IMHO, and far ahead, but progress always slows down when you get to the actual launches.
Firstly, getting the first one off the ground ALWAYS takes longer. Right now I think they will be lucky to get even a sub-orb away before early 2017, based on progress of the launch site and subsystems. We are in August November already and they are showing fairing sep tests and launch site in a semi-finished state - while still saying "end of the year". It slips and slips, but this is normal.
Secondly there is almost certainly going to be a failure during early launches for one reason or another. That will lead to literally months if not years of delays while they analyze what went wrong and re-engineer and test the problem. This is what kills cashflow, as customers and investor dry up at this point, so making sure you have a full bank account prior to launch 1 is crucial. This consideration also is a factor in management decision to go/no go - it is a calculated risk based on readiness and cash.
They clearly want to launch in the antipodean Summer time - circa Dec-March, 3-4-5 months from now - but honestly I doubt they will make that, because all the usual human stuff like school summer holidays in December/Jan in Aus/NZ and just because they are not close enough to ready I think.
And that then pushes them out into New Zealand autumn and winter; the issue then is weather, as Mahia gets 70+ days a year with wind gusts above 63 kph, which is a Force 8 gale, most of them in autumn, spring and winter ie., March-November (https://www.niwa.co.nz/static/Hawkes%20Bay%20WEB.pdf pp15-17).
Even if you say your rocket handles significant loads, I think we can all agree that F8 gales - probably plus rain/sleet/snow, as the minimum monthly temps in winter are sub-zero degrees C - are not good launch conditions. So if you then struggle to find a good launch window, you are hanging almost another year until Southern spring/summer 2017...
Anyway, I think again they are the most advanced and complete of the pack, but it's a long way from looking like a rocket to flying like one. I would put my money on late 2017 launch.
Plus I add to this:
They do not yet have an FAA range ops licence or launch licence. Their range is an FAA-controlled US range, even though in New Zealand:
(http://i.imgur.com/7pMESaw.png)
I'm not sure what they plan, probably suborbital initally, but they need a couple of permits, and there is nothing in the FAA database as yet. Also no NOTAMs in the ICAO database for that area.
-
There has just been a 7.4 magnitude earthquake in New Zealand. It appears to be not very close to the launch site, but it might disrupt some logistics. I hope the people and government of New Zealand will be able to deal with this earthquake and its effects.
-
There was also a tsunami warning so more info is needed.
http://news.trust.org/item/20161113113702-re5f9
-
The epicentre is far south from there
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37967178
-
Wellington suffered a little damage, but nothing much north of there, I'd be very surprised if Rocket Lab operations were affected at all.
-
I wonder if RL have picked up some of Firefly propulsion team, great way to get some aerospike and methane engine knowledge.
A methane aerospike power LV would be great follow on to Electron. Firefly switched to RP1 as methane wouldn't work without turbopump, an area RL are experts in.
-
I wonder if RL have picked up some of Firefly propulsion team, great way to get some aerospike and methane engine knowledge.
If I was RocketLab, I'd steer clear of hiring any Firefly engineers to work on aerospike development, as that's a big part of the IP case that Virgin has filed against Markusic:
According to the Complaint, Galactic hired Markusic in 2011 as its VP of Propulsion. Markusic’s role gave him intimate knowledge of the Company’s research into liquid rocket propulsion, space vehicle architecture, “aerospike” technology, and other confidential projects. (https://www.crowelltradesecretstrends.com/2016/10/space-race-starts-anew-as-virgin-galactic-files-trade-secrets-claims-against-rival/)
Best to steer clear of that mess until the dust settles. RocketLab is in a good position right now without the need to worry about developing any additional propulsion technologies anyways, so it makes sense to just stay the course.
-
I wonder if RL have picked up some of Firefly propulsion team, great way to get some aerospike and methane engine knowledge.
A methane aerospike power LV would be great follow on to Electron. Firefly switched to RP1 as methane wouldn't work without turbopump, an area RL are experts in.
Peter Beck, the CEO of Rocket Lab, has been quoted several times in interviews that the Electron will be the focus of the company. No, "Electron Plus", "Electron Heavy", "Neutron", or any variations of the Electron launch vehicle. The focus is reliability, cost reduction, and volume of production of the existing single core launch vehicle.
-
Plus, people would have to move from Austin to Auckland. Small difference there.
There is another smallsat launcher company keenly interested in aerospike engines though (http://vectorspacesystems.com/blog/2016/11/8/failure-is-the-seed-of-growth-for-success-lessons-learned-from-developing-and-testing-aerospike-rocket-engines)
-
I wonder if RL have picked up some of Firefly propulsion team, great way to get some aerospike and methane engine knowledge.
A methane aerospike power LV would be great follow on to Electron. Firefly switched to RP1 as methane wouldn't work without turbopump, an area RL are experts in.
Peter Beck, the CEO of Rocket Lab, has been quoted several times in interviews that the Electron will be the focus of the company. No, "Electron Plus", "Electron Heavy", "Neutron", or any variations of the Electron launch vehicle. The focus is reliability, cost reduction, and volume of production of the existing single core launch vehicle.
And even if it wasn't, they'd better get this one flying before they start working on the next model. Get experience with actually launching stuff to space, get some cashflow going, then check if there is room for a whole other development programme. I can't think of any circumstance where it would make sense to do this now instead of when the first development programme has ended (successfully or otherwise)
-
I don't think methane would benefit rocketlabs, at all. It does not compare well to RP-1 unless you are using it as the working fluid in a turbopump. You could get five or so extra seconds or so of ISP at the expense of a lower fuel density and having to work with a cryogenic fuel. In fact, it might actually decrease ISP if you keep the same batteries because you need more pump power to pump the less dense fuel to the same chamber pressure.
As far as LOX/Hydrocarbon engines go, choice of engine cycle and chamber pressure is a much bigger factor in performance than choice of propellant.
I also don't really see an areospike being much of a benefit on a two-stage vehicle with pump-fed engines. The Rutherford engine has a great specific impulse already, it isn't handicaped by low chamber pressures like pressure-fed engines. The possible improvements to first stage specific impulse are probably not worth the decrease in total thrust due to not being able to fit an engine in the middle.
First stage total thrust is the most important performance factor for a first stage by far, moreso than first stage ISP at sea level. With the same mass ratio and high-altitude Isp, a 10% increase in liftoff thrust can increase the payload more than say a 10% increase in SL Isp. Increasing liftoff T/W ratio from say 1.3 to 1.4 gives the same improvement in fuel efficiency as increasing the Isp during liftoff by 33%.
Imho, the main reason to use an aerospike is because you are forced to due to low chamber pressures, usually because your engine is pressure-fed.
-
I don't think methane would benefit rocketlabs, at all. It does not compare well to RP-1 unless you are using it as the working fluid in a turbopump. You could get five or so extra seconds or so of ISP at the expense of a lower fuel density and having to work with a cryogenic fuel. In fact, it might actually decrease ISP if you keep the same batteries because you need more pump power to pump the less dense fuel to the same chamber pressure.
As far as LOX/Hydrocarbon engines go, choice of engine cycle and chamber pressure is a much bigger factor in performance than choice of propellant.
I also don't really see an areospike being much of a benefit on a two-stage vehicle with pump-fed engines. The Rutherford engine has a great specific impulse already, it isn't handicaped by low chamber pressures like pressure-fed engines. The possible improvements to first stage specific impulse are probably not worth the decrease in total thrust due to not being able to fit an engine in the middle.
First stage total thrust is the most important performance factor for a first stage by far, moreso than first stage ISP at sea level. With the same mass ratio and high-altitude Isp, a 10% increase in liftoff thrust can increase the payload more than say a 10% increase in SL Isp. Increasing liftoff T/W ratio from say 1.3 to 1.4 gives the same improvement in fuel efficiency as increasing the Isp during liftoff by 33%.
Imho, the main reason to use an aerospike is because you are forced to due to low chamber pressures, usually because your engine is pressure-fed.
Excellent response. Thanks.
-
If you go the ride share route on the Electron, it starts at $70k a cubesat according to the website.
How does this work out? 5,000,000/70,000 = ~71
Since I doubt they'll be able to stuff 70 cubesats in the fairing, that cost seems like an arbitrary figure for a ride share on a rocket with probably one larger payload. How often would such a launch option manifest itself?
-
If you go the ride share route on the Electron, it starts at $70k a cubesat according to the website.
How does this work out? 5,000,000/70,000 = ~71
Since I doubt they'll be able to stuff 70 cubesats in the fairing, that cost seems like an arbitrary figure for a ride share on a rocket with probably one larger payload. How often would such a launch option manifest itself?
According to the booking page on their website they can fit 24 3U cubesats and 8 1U cubesats in a standard fairing.
-
If you go the ride share route on the Electron, it starts at $70k a cubesat according to the website.
How does this work out? 5,000,000/70,000 = ~71
Since I doubt they'll be able to stuff 70 cubesats in the fairing, that cost seems like an arbitrary figure for a ride share on a rocket with probably one larger payload. How often would such a launch option manifest itself?
According to the booking page on their website they can fit 24 3U cubesats and 8 1U cubesats in a standard fairing.
24*3=72 so they might have meant $70K per U if they price by mass or volume.
-
Is it just me or does the rocketlab website appear to be down right now?
Edit: it seems I was unlucky enough to trying to access it while they were updating it.
-
There has just been a 7.4 magnitude earthquake in New Zealand. It appears to be not very close to the launch site, but it might disrupt some logistics. I hope the people and government of New Zealand will be able to deal with this earthquake and its effects.
The latest one is a little closer to their operations, but on the opposite side of the country. Must be earthquake season!
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-22/earthquake-hits-new-zealand-north-island/8045512
-
Is it just me or does the rocketlab website appear to be down right now?
Edit: it seems I was unlucky enough to trying to access it while they were updating it.
They've also changed the booking pages. Now they offer 6U and 12U slots.
They've also put up videos about the VLM and Instant Eyes programs
-
They've also changed the booking pages. Now they offer 6U and 12U slots.
They've also put up videos about the VLM and Instant Eyes programs
Additionally they have added an option for an elliptical orbit with perigee at 180km and apogee at 350+ km with much higher mass to orbit (in neighborhood of 220 kg). Of course, I am not sure how useful an orbit with such a low perigee is...
-
Looks like test launch is moved to early 2017.
http://gisborneherald.co.nz/localnews/2564230-135/rocket-lab-test-flights-delayed
Also to note: Rocket Lab doubled the size of the team.
-
Looks like test launch is moved to early 2017.
Makes sense.. The biggest beef with the locals would be:
Ms Moreau-Hammond said further details about road closures would be available in the coming weeks but there would be no closures this year.
-
Rocket Lab media spokeswoman Catherine Moreau-Hammond said the team had worked tirelessly this year, and with the holidays fast approaching they felt it best to allow everyone a decent break.
Sounds like a good company to work for.
-
Rocket Lab media spokeswoman Catherine Moreau-Hammond said the team had worked tirelessly this year, and with the holidays fast approaching they felt it best to allow everyone a decent break.
Sounds like a good company to work for.
As I said some months ago:-
They clearly want to launch in the antipodean Summer time - circa Dec-March, 3-4-5 months from now - but honestly I doubt they will make that, because all the usual human stuff like school summer holidays in December/Jan in Aus/NZ and just because they are not close enough to ready I think.
The reason this was obvious is that the December holiday is not just like the normal few days for Christmas; in Aus/NZ it is like the long school summer holiday in the Northern hemisphere. Kids are off school for 6 weeks from mid-December to end of January, with new school year starting 1 February.
So IMHO, if they take off that period, there is no chance they will be launching in February, just because people need to get back up to speed after a long break, and probably not even March for similar reasons. Add in all the complexities of a first launch - all the things this company has never done before, despite their rapid progress in R&D, all the approvals and regulatory hurdles, systems integration, the entire range procedure.... with the best possible will it's easy to see slippage of 3+ months. And then we are into antipodean Autumn and Winter.
I still think we will see a flight around September 2017.
-
There is also a payload user guide available (if you ask):-
http://rocketlabusa.com/launch/rideshare/ (http://rocketlabusa.com/launch/rideshare/)
-
Rocket Lab media spokeswoman Catherine Moreau-Hammond said the team had worked tirelessly this year, and with the holidays fast approaching they felt it best to allow everyone a decent break.
Sounds like a good company to work for.
As I said some months ago:-
They clearly want to launch in the antipodean Summer time - circa Dec-March, 3-4-5 months from now - but honestly I doubt they will make that, because all the usual human stuff like school summer holidays in December/Jan in Aus/NZ and just because they are not close enough to ready I think.
The reason this was obvious is that the December holiday is not just like the normal few days for Christmas; in Aus/NZ it is like the long school summer holiday in the Northern hemisphere. Kids are off school for 6 weeks from mid-December to end of January, with new school year starting 1 February.
So IMHO, if they take off that period, there is no chance they will be launching in February, just because people need to get back up to speed after a long break, and probably not even March for similar reasons. Add in all the complexities of a first launch - all the things this company has never done before, despite their rapid progress in R&D, all the approvals and regulatory hurdles, systems integration, the entire range procedure.... with the best possible will it's easy to see slippage of 3+ months. And then we are into antipodean Autumn and Winter.
I still think we will see a flight around September 2017.
More likely Feb-Mar. Given how important the first launches are they may not allow any leave in Feb-Apr time frame.
-
Additionally they have added an option for an elliptical orbit with perigee at 180km and apogee at 350+ km with much higher mass to orbit (in neighborhood of 220 kg). Of course, I am not sure how useful an orbit with such a low perigee is...
My guess is that a payload to such an orbit would likely have its own apogee kick motor.
-
Does anyone know what they do in Huntington Beach? It seems like the lion's share of their work would be in NZ.
edit: Answered my own question. Avionics/Guidance/Electronics and Propulsion are done in the US and Composite Structures and Integration are done in NZ.
http://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3642&context=space-congress-proceedings
-
Did anybody else notice the dimensions on the vehicle have changed?
Initial: 18m x 1m on 2014 website (simple cyclinder = 56m3 vol)
Was: 16m x 1.2m on old website (simple cyclindrr = 60m3 vol)
Now: 17m x 1.2m on new one (simple cylinder = 64m3 vol)
Assuming the nosecone has not changed, that is a big move, about 4 cubic meters of volume, presumably extra tankage for more fuel.
Also the price point isn't US$4.9M. Add up all the cubesats in a payload and it is more like US$6.5M.
-
If you go the ride share route on the Electron, it starts at $70k a cubesat according to the website.
How does this work out? 5,000,000/70,000 = ~71
Since I doubt they'll be able to stuff 70 cubesats in the fairing, that cost seems like an arbitrary figure for a ride share on a rocket with probably one larger payload. How often would such a launch option manifest itself?
According to the booking page on their website they can fit 24 3U cubesats and 8 1U cubesats in a standard fairing.
I should have done a little research before deciding to mash away at the keyboard. I just looked at the fairing pics and got the impression that it was too small to house that many cubesats. Thanks for the correction!
Unrelated to the above, I'd love to know about a trade study RocketLab may have performed WRT tank pressurization levels and structural/etc weight costs to reduce turbopump power and battery requirements.
Also curious why they haven't gone with something along the lines of strap on booster-like separable battery packs consisting of a sizable amount of S1's total battery capacity. Hell, they could even potentially recover them.
-
Probably becausein order to get enough current in order to drive the turbopumps, they have to discharge all the batteries simultaneously. Any system that used batteries sequentially would have a lower sustained maximum current.
Sent from my LGL44VL using Tapatalk
-
Ah, that makes sense. I suppose the LV and payloads they're likely to carry wont require much throttling anyway.
-
Hope this latest earthquake didn't affect the launch site. It was centered very close.http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11755611&ref=NZH_FBpage
-
Hope this latest earthquake didn't affect the launch site. It was centered very close.http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11755611&ref=NZH_FBpage
Hmm.. You certainly wouldn't want something like that happening in the final few seconds before launch!
(OTOH there'd be a lot more rockin'-and-rollin' than one might experience in Florida)
-
http://rocketlab.co.nz/latest/rocket-lab-completes-final-major-technical-milestone-before-first-test-launches/
https://youtu.be/oBiZqHpZBV4
Rocket Lab today announced the flight qualification and acceptance of the first stage booster of the Electron launch vehicle.
All primary components of the stage – including engines, vehicle structures, avionics and software systems - were designed, developed and tested in-house at Rocket Lab.
“Rocket Lab has had a hugely successful year with qualification of all major vehicle systems, completion of Launch Complex 1 and considerable growth of our team and customer base,” said Peter Beck, Rocket Lab CEO.
“We will continue to test the vehicle extensively in the lead-up to commercial operations and are looking forward to beginning the test flight program. Our focus with the Electron has been to develop a reliable launch vehicle that can be manufactured in high volumes – our ultimate goal is to make space accessible by providing an unprecedented frequency of launch opportunities.”
Rocket Lab plans to begin full vehicle testing in early 2017 once international launch licensing is complete. The tests will occur from Rocket Lab Launch Complex 1, located on the Mahia Peninsula of New Zealand.
-
Congrats RocketLab
an article on some payloads
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33141.msg1616577#msg1616577
-
Awesome news. Really rooting for these Kiwis to pull it off. This is one of the most exciting things going on in the space launch industry right now. They have the expertise, the funding, and now the hardware to get the job done. Congrats to them.
I wonder if the stage tests they have been conducting are using battery or mains power? Batteries, I hope! It wouldn't be a full systems test if they didn't use batteries.
-
Good news. Waiting launch license, as usual it is paper work that always takes longest.
-
Synchronized gimballing at 0:56 - :1:00.
-
Great progress! :)
But it does look like a shortened 1st stage test article, right? Or is the first stage that short?
-
Great progress! :)
But it does look like a shortened 1st stage test article, right? Or is the first stage that short?
Electron has a carbon composite structure of 1.2 m diameter and 20 m length. Probably around 12-15 metres for first stage as Rocket Labs doesnt list stage length only total combined length.
-
Just great. So looking forward to First Flight!
-
Awesome news. Really rooting for these Kiwis to pull it off. This is one of the most exciting things going on in the space launch industry right now. They have the expertise, the funding, and now the hardware to get the job done. Congrats to them.
I wonder if the stage tests they have been conducting are using battery or mains power? Batteries, I hope! It wouldn't be a full systems test if they didn't use batteries.
Must to use batteries.
Mains cant support that peak power.
-
But it does look like a shortened 1st stage test article, right? Or is the first stage that short?
That is definitely a short tank, which means they did not do a full mission cycle burn. You can scale it off the helium bottles on the right. Each of those is about 1.4m-1.5m tall, so the entire tank is about 3m-3.5m, about quarter size.
(http://i.imgur.com/y9oCoB3.png)
Electron has a carbon composite structure of 1.2 m diameter and 20 m length. Probably around 12-15 metres for first stage as Rocket Labs doesnt list stage length only total combined length.
Here are the stage dimensions and masses:-
(http://i.imgur.com/5TLGlLA.jpg)
Source: Environmental Impact Statement
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/media/Extra%20downloads/Source%20file/space-launch-vehicle-discussion-doc.docx
-
I found Rocket Lab's engine test sites on Google Earth:
New:
(http://i.imgur.com/aTFiuuW.jpg)
Original:
(http://i.imgur.com/h33I766.jpg)
-
Nice find @ringsider :)
Btw, have anyone from here used a parcel forwarding service like shipw.com (https://www.shipw.com/) to send packages from us to another country? I'm not an us citizen an I want to shop something from amazon us.
-
Yeah, excellent find! What are the coordinates?
-
I'm genuinely curious what indications in the pictures point toward those sites being engine test sites. Especially the second one. How did you come to the conclusion those are the test sites?
-
Job advert at Rocket Lab with some interesting language:-
With the test flights of Rocket Lab's Electron vehicle fast approaching, Rocket Lab has seen continued and growing public interest. This is an incredible opportunity to manage the profile of a company that inspires and excites people globally.
The Communications Manager is responsible for leading Rocket Lab New Zealand's public relations and brand, and meeting the needs and interest of a diverse range of domestic and international stakeholders.
This role is based in Auckland with frequent travel to Rocket Lab Launch Complex 1 (Mahia, New Zealand) and the United States.
ROLE DESCRIPTION
Public Relations
Liaise with media and act as company spokesperson
Pitch and place pieces in industry and consumer media
Write op-eds and features
Develop and maintain key relationships
Plan, write and distribute press releases
Crisis management, contingency planning and expectation management
Local Community Engagement - Launch Complex 1
Arrange and present at public information days
Assist members of the public with concerns and questions
Provide ongoing public information
Liaise with businesses and organisations interested in starting tourism initiatives or launch related spin-offs
Government Relations
Liaise and engage with local and central government
Respond to government queries for information, prepare briefing materials etc.
Represent Rocket Lab on various planning committees and groups as required
Brand Management
Prevent, manage and respond to brand and copyright infringements, coordinate supplier publicity agreements etc.
Social Media, Website and Digital Assets
Create and manage assets and content
Supervise video production and photographic art direction
Manage of social media accounts and strategy
Events, Trade Shows and Exhibits
Plan trade shows and events for both Rocket Lab New Zealand and Rocket Lab USA
Work with museums, education institutes etc.
Marketing Collateral
Plan, write and oversee design of print and digital marketing collateral and materials
REQUIRED SKILLS
Minimum 5 years of experience in communications/public relations
Minimum 1 year of experience as media spokesperson
Experience with digital assets, social media strategies and tactics
Bachelor's degree required
PREFERRED SKILLS & EXPERIENCE
Public relations experience in tech, aerospace or public policy
Exceptional verbal and written communication skills
Ability to grasp complex issues
Natural interest in technology and preferably aerospace
Ability to work independently and quickly in an unsupervised environment
Discretion and ability to grasp stringent security requirements and commercial sensitivities
Proven skills in establishing and maintaining relationships with wide range of stakeholders
Strong negotiation, critical-thinking and decision making skills
Managerial experience
-
And now for something completely different.
http://www.mahiafishingclub.com/assets/Uploads/Rocket-Lab-Public-Info-Jan-2017.pdf
EDIT: also, the website has gotten a slight facelift. With a cool background video
-
Tweet from Jeff Foust: (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/818928799639306240)
[Anna] Stark [, NASA Venture Class Launch Services project mgr]: first launch of Electron by Rocket Lab is scheduled for end of this month; NASA VCLS mission will be their 6th, later this year.
-
Tweet from Jeff Foust: (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/818928799639306240)
[Anna] Stark [, NASA Venture Class Launch Services project mgr]: first launch of Electron by Rocket Lab is scheduled for end of this month; NASA VCLS mission will be their 6th, later this year.
"Scheduled"...
No licences for launch site or launch, as yet, however:-
https://www.faa.gov/data_research/commercial_space_data/licenses/
-
Tweet from Jeff Foust: (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/818928799639306240)
[Anna] Stark [, NASA Venture Class Launch Services project mgr]: first launch of Electron by Rocket Lab is scheduled for end of this month; NASA VCLS mission will be their 6th, later this year.
"Scheduled"...
No licences for launch site or launch, as yet, however:-
https://www.faa.gov/data_research/commercial_space_data/licenses/
Would not the New Zealand launch sites be under the control of New Zealand (https://www.caa.govt.nz/ and http://www.transport.govt.nz/air/) and not the FAA??
-
Tweet from Jeff Foust: (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/818928799639306240)
[Anna] Stark [, NASA Venture Class Launch Services project mgr]: first launch of Electron by Rocket Lab is scheduled for end of this month; NASA VCLS mission will be their 6th, later this year.
"Scheduled"...
No licences for launch site or launch, as yet, however:-
https://www.faa.gov/data_research/commercial_space_data/licenses/
Would not the New Zealand launch sites be under the control of New Zealand (https://www.caa.govt.nz/ and http://www.transport.govt.nz/air/) and not the FAA??
No. It is an FAA launch site under US control (they mention this is one of the slide decks above) and the launcher is US-owned because Rocket Lab is now a US headquartered corporation. Rocket Lab made that decision when it redomiciled. Regulations are all detailed in the TSA.
NZ is introducing new regulations and signed a waiver contract with RL last year as an interim measure to allow launches. But even then, a US-owned rocket will be under US authority, so I expect heavy leaning on the TSA and maybe dual licencing.
-
It seems like with the website's update, the ISP of the first stage is finally shown as 303 sec and the ISP of the second stage has been given a slight bump to 333 from 327. Looks like they are getting a bit more than expected power out of the batteries.
Cheers
-
Tweet from Jeff Foust: (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/818928799639306240)
[Anna] Stark [, NASA Venture Class Launch Services project mgr]: first launch of Electron by Rocket Lab is scheduled for end of this month; NASA VCLS mission will be their 6th, later this year.
I find this sentence interesting "NASA VCLS mission will be their 6th, later this year"
I know it is a relatively small rocket but isn't 6 launches in the first year being rather optimistic?
It is a good sign though that the fist launch might not to to far away.
-
Tweet from Jeff Foust: (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/818928799639306240)
[Anna] Stark [, NASA Venture Class Launch Services project mgr]: first launch of Electron by Rocket Lab is scheduled for end of this month; NASA VCLS mission will be their 6th, later this year.
"Scheduled"...
No licences for launch site or launch, as yet, however:-
https://www.faa.gov/data_research/commercial_space_data/licenses/
I find this very hard to believe with no actual progress seen on their 1st actual launch campaign.
A successful WDR or static fire in launch configuration on the actual pad would go a long way as to proving their readiness. Until then..... ::)
-
I find this very hard to believe with no actual progress seen on their 1st actual launch campaign.
A successful WDR or static fire in launch configuration on the actual pad would go a long way as to proving their readiness. Until then..... ::)
Hmm... Given their current level of readiness, I have some faith that they could possibly carry off a *test* launch by the end of the month. This isn't exactly a Falcon 9 remember, it's more in the "big amateur" category.. and given the number they have in build (we've seen 3 in some photos) six launches this year isn't out of the question either.
..but the underlying assumption is that the first and subsequent launches will ALL be a resounding success and hit the target right on the money, and as we all know (and SpaceX testify) "Space is Hard".
..but Peter Beck is also an optimist. :)
-
I find this very hard to believe with no actual progress seen on their 1st actual launch campaign.
A successful WDR or static fire in launch configuration on the actual pad would go a long way as to proving their readiness. Until then..... ::)
Hmm... Given their current level of readiness, I have some faith that they could possibly carry off a *test* launch by the end of the month. This isn't exactly a Falcon 9 remember, it's more in the "big amateur" category.. and given the number they have in build (we've seen 3 in some photos) six launches this year isn't out of the question either.
..but the underlying assumption is that the first and subsequent launches will ALL be a resounding success and hit the target right on the money, and as we all know (and SpaceX testify) "Space is Hard".
..but Peter Beck is also an optimist. :)
I was more thinking about the road to the 1st launch of the Falcon 1 - lots of issues popped out close to launch back then. RL probably won't have to suffer from that much of delays as SpaceX did (was it really delayed by a year back in 2005-6? :o) but lots of things still seems to be yet to be done so..... ::)
-
I find this very hard to believe with no actual progress seen on their 1st actual launch campaign.
A successful WDR or static fire in launch configuration on the actual pad would go a long way as to proving their readiness. Until then..... ::)
Hmm... Given their current level of readiness, I have some faith that they could possibly carry off a *test* launch by the end of the month. This isn't exactly a Falcon 9 remember, it's more in the "big amateur" category.. and given the number they have in build (we've seen 3 in some photos) six launches this year isn't out of the question either.
..but the underlying assumption is that the first and subsequent launches will ALL be a resounding success and hit the target right on the money, and as we all know (and SpaceX testify) "Space is Hard".
..but Peter Beck is also an optimist. :)
I was more thinking about the road to the 1st launch of the Falcon 1 - lots of issues popped out close to launch back then. RL probably won't have to suffer from that much of delays as SpaceX did (was it really delayed by a year back in 2005-6? :o) but lots of things still seems to be yet to be done so..... ::)
You are correct ;D
A followup tweet from Jeff Foust: (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/819016450300055555)
Rocket Lab tells me “no test this month but we’re certainly getting close.”
-
A followup tweet from Jeff Foust: (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/819016450300055555)
Rocket Lab tells me “no test this month but we’re certainly getting close.”
So they're not quite as close as I thought they were?.. bummer.
Reminds me of what the mechanic said last time I went to pick up the car: "No sir, your car isn't ready yet - but we're working on it." :(
-
A followup tweet from Jeff Foust: (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/819016450300055555)
Rocket Lab tells me “no test this month but we’re certainly getting close.”
So they're not quite as close as I thought they were?.. bummer.
Reminds me of what the mechanic said last time I went to pick up the car: "No sir, your car isn't ready yet - but we're working on it." :(
My money is still on circa September for a full orbital attempt.
-
My money is still on circa September for a full orbital attempt.
You'd put money on a set date for a platform that hasn't got to static fire, leave alone demonstrated to leave the pad without vanishing in a ball of flame?!??
Oh boy, have I got some schemes investment opportunities for you! ;D
-
I think "attempt" is the operative word, there.
-
My money is still on circa September for a full orbital attempt.
You'd put money on a set date for a platform that hasn't got to static fire, leave alone demonstrated to leave the pad without vanishing in a ball of flame?!??
Oh boy, have I got some schemes investment opportunities for you! ;D
Rocket Lab has static fired the Electron first stage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBiZqHpZBV4
-
My money is still on circa September for a full orbital attempt.
You'd put money on a set date for a platform that hasn't got to static fire, leave alone demonstrated to leave the pad without vanishing in a ball of flame?!??
Oh boy, have I got some schemes investment opportunities for you! ;D
Rocket Lab has static fired the Electron first stage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBiZqHpZBV4
I think his concern was that the Electron didn't go through a full up static fire like SpaceX does. Like with the second stage mated with the first. Although, I don't think any launch vehicle does full up static tests like SpaceX does. Someone can correct me on that if I'm wrong.
-
I think his concern was that the Electron didn't go through a full up static fire like SpaceX does. Like with the second stage mated with the first. Although, I don't think any launch vehicle does full up static tests like SpaceX does. Someone can correct me on that if I'm wrong.
I must admit that I'd forgotten they'd qualified their first stage design.. but that's still a long way from static fire of a complete rocket assembly (with it's associated vibration analysis, etc.) leave alone launch of anything higher than the launch pad.
They say they're only weeks away from a first launch, but IF (a) that's successful and (b) it's true that they plan at least six launches a year, I would think they'll be wanting to make an orbital attempt a lot sooner than September..
.. but then I also think it's far too early to bet on it. :)
-
I'm betting they will make a first attempt in Q1. And the next one not more than 3 month after - i don't think they are funded at levels where they can afford to wait, or not hit a particular cadence fairly quickly. How successful these attempts can be, is a completely different matter.
MVR = minimum viable rocket
-
I think "attempt" is the operative word, there.
Indeed.
We should setup a little table of who backs which date for a full first orbital launch attempt.
-
I guess "all up" testing is a thing now, but it would seem more prudent to test just the first stage, and if possible, in another test, the second stage as a stand-alone minus the nozzle extension.
-
Good for them. Around the :50 mark, the nozzles can be seen gimballing in unison, so they were testing the TVC system(s) as would be expected in a stage qual test.
And, a recent WSJ article:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/welcome-to-new-zealand-gateway-to-outer-space-1483982532
At least they didn't call Peter Beck a "space nut" and torpedo his upcoming IPO (if he had one). NewSpace not so nutty any more...except for the legislator singing "Rocket Man" in Parliament.
-
And, a recent WSJ article:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/welcome-to-new-zealand-gateway-to-outer-space-1483982532
At least they didn't call Peter Beck a "space nut" and torpedo his upcoming IPO (if he had one). NewSpace not so nutty any more...except for the legislator singing "Rocket Man" in Parliament.
Yeah..
"We went to all the launch ranges in America,” said Peter Beck, a wiry-haired engineer who a decade ago founded Calif.-based aerospace company Rocket Lab....
Whilst not incorrect AIUI, after watching RL develop from the sidelines almost from the very start, the way that's worded kinda grates for some reason. Probably because there were very good reasons this is happening in NZ that didn't quite make that article ...(or at least not the bit that can be accessed without subscription). :(
-
Whilst not incorrect AIUI, after watching RL develop from the sidelines almost from the very start, the way that's worded kinda grates for some reason. Probably because there were very good reasons this is happening in NZ that didn't quite make that article ...(or at least not the bit that can be accessed without subscription). :(
Enter the link in Google and then click the Google link. That gives you full access.
-
Whilst not incorrect AIUI, after watching RL develop from the sidelines almost from the very start, the way that's worded kinda grates for some reason. Probably because there were very good reasons this is happening in NZ that didn't quite make that article ...(or at least not the bit that can be accessed without subscription). :(
Enter the link in Google and then click the Google link. That gives you full access.
Didn't know about that little trick.. thanks!
Reading the remainder of the article, it does redeem itself rather quickly.. in all, just a good read. :)
-
...Others are a touch underwhelmed, being more attuned over the years to other legendary exploits along the coast here. Mahia is where the folkloric Maori hero Maui is said to have punched himself in the nose to draw blood and lure a fish that turned out to be New Zealand’s North Island.
“I have been to Cape Canaveral to see a rocket go up once,” said Pauline Tangiora, a Maori elder from Mahia’s Rongomaiwahine Tribe. “It didn’t impress me at all.”
I laughed.
-
"We went to all the launch ranges in America,” said Peter Beck, a wiry-haired engineer who a decade ago founded Calif.-based aerospace company Rocket Lab....
Whilst not incorrect AIUI, after watching RL develop from the sidelines almost from the very start, the way that's worded kinda grates for some reason. Probably because there were very good reasons this is happening in NZ that didn't quite make that article ...(or at least not the bit that can be accessed without subscription). :(
What the article says may be more true than you think. Rocket Lab probably set out to be a more conventional rocket company, making rockets but not owning and operating their own private launch range. After all, getting all the ducks in a row in order to operate a range is in many ways a distraction from their primary mission which is to build rockets to launch their customers' payloads into space. Go to Canaveral or Vandenberg or Wallops or Kodiak and you can more or less pay somebody else to do it for you instead.
Except, at some point along the line they realized they couldn't make their vision of frequent and rapid launches work within the framework of traditional space, since none of the traditional ranges can support that many launches. I think I read somewhere that Canaveral is cleared for up to 48 launches in 2017. Seems like a lot, but when you split it between all the companies and rocket families using the facilities it starts to seem quite limiting if there is to be growth in the launch market.
Not to mention, at $5 million per launch, in a place like Canaveral, the cost of securing the range probably becomes a pretty substantial percentage of the total cost of the launch.
This whole business kind of reminds me of how Elon Musk never really set out to actually build rockets. Plan A was to use Russian ICBMs to launch a small greenhouse to Mars to get people more interested in space exploration and get NASA's exploration budget increased. Bureaucracy, regulation, and good old fashioned cultural barriers got in the way of the plan to buy missiles from Russia. That was the inception of Plan B, building his own rocket. The rest is history.
-
So I was having a snoop around to see if I could find out what was discussed at those "public information sessions" mentioned on the previous page, and a number of people were also enquiring about it on FB. Rocketlab replied:
Hello! Thanks for all the interest in the meeting. To clarify, these sessions are part of an ongoing series that have been held at Mokotahi Hall for local residents. They’re primarily focussed on local operations and logistics. Much of the information is likely not of interest to the general public. No major new information is being discussed. Public updates will continue to come through – we just like to keep in touch with our neighbours! Thanks
So, yeah. Probably nothing super interesting for anyone who doesn't live there. I imagine they weren't giving out hard dates for anything.
-
This is about Moon Express but some info on Rocket Lab.
http://spacenews.com/moon-express-fully-funded-for-google-lunar-x-prize-bid/
"
The company’s current schedule calls for integrating the spacecraft in July, and then shipping it to Rocket Lab’s New Zealand launch site in October. The launch, scheduled for late this year, will be the seventh or eighth operational flight of the Electron, Richards said, shortly after a NASA mission under a Venture Class Launch Services contract Rocket Lab received in late 2015. - "
All going well they will be launching about 10 Electrons in 2017, 2-3 test launches plus 7-8 operational launches.
Given launch site delays, they have had time build enough LVs and scheduling at range shouldn't be issue. The only show stopper will be Electron reliability.
First launch is Feb, which makes sense as they have to wait for bulk of holiday makers to leave. Which will be end of school holiday at end of Jan.
-
This is about Moon Express but some info on Rocket Lab.
http://spacenews.com/moon-express-fully-funded-for-google-lunar-x-prize-bid/
"
The company’s current schedule calls for integrating the spacecraft in July, and then shipping it to Rocket Lab’s New Zealand launch site in October. The launch, scheduled for late this year, will be the seventh or eighth operational flight of the Electron, Richards said, shortly after a NASA mission under a Venture Class Launch Services contract Rocket Lab received in late 2015. - "
All going well they will be launching about 10 Electrons in 2017, 2-3 test launches plus 7-8 operational launches.
Given launch site delays, they have had time build enough LVs and scheduling at range shouldn't be issue. The only show stopper will be Electron reliability.
First launch is Feb, which makes sense as they have to wait for bulk of holiday makers to leave. Which will be end of school holiday at end of Jan.
There is no way they will launch 8-10 flights in 2017, let alone successful flights.
I really like Rocket Lab but let's be realistic. This is a company that just barely managed to launch a small sounding rocket to the Karmann line. Orbit is another league entirely. Spacex took 3.4 years to achieve orbit - first F1 flight was March 2006, first suvcessful orbit was July 2009.
As to February, come on - we haven't seen a full mission duration S1 qualification burn from Rocket Lab yet, the burn they ran was using a short tank. And we haven't even got to GNC accuracy, stage separation or restart yet, let alone all the minor integration issues that can kibosh a launch. Those are massive hills to climb. With the best will in the world the last few details chew up huge chunks of time, especially when something goes wrong.
I reckon they are at least 6 months away from an initial all up attempt, maybe as much as a year.
Time for a flightpool - place your bets:-
1st full stack orbital launch attempt (regardless of outcome): 15 September 2017
1st successful orbital flight: 15 October 2019
-
Ringside, sounds you know more than Moon Express, Planet labs, NASA and Lockheed Martin. All of these companies have a vested interest in RL flying soon, but what do they know about space flight.
-
Ringside, sounds you know more than Moon Express, Planet labs, NASA and Lockheed Martin. All of these companies have a vested interest in RL flying soon, but what do they know about space flight.
I don't see how that is relevant, although I probably know more about launcher development than Moon Express and Planet... LM is a shareholder and has a literal vested interest, but those two are just customers with best effort launch contracts. In any case what is relevant is just understanding the complexity of the task.
I really hope they fly, I think they are far and away the best of the bunch, but the bald facts are that the last few inches of launcher development are the biggest sweat. Getting it to the pad is one thing, making it fly where it is supposed to fly is quite another. The history of launchers is littered with underestimated launch dates and failed early attempts.
Just look at RL's dates. Last January it was "summer". Then it was "December". That's 6 months. Now we are another month along and I don't think they have given a new date - those quoted above came from NASA and Moon Express with caveats like "current schedule" and "if all goes to plan".
Reality is that it almost never goes to plan. They just got back from the NZ equivalent of summer holidays, it will take a month to get back up to speed and then probably two months to get ready. There are licenses and inspections, the regulator wants additional proof on 23 items as well as process changes, which takes 4 weeks. Then it's southern Autumn. Then something goes wrong, who knows what - a leak, a software bug, an engine glitch, a miscalculation. It's the first time they tried this, literally 1000 things could go wrong. Then someone crucial gets sick or leaves. Then it's Easter school holidays. Then it's winter. Something else goes wrong, maybe something blows up during testing, maybe they discovered cracks in some vital part, maybe some revision creates an issue. That needs 6-8 weeks to understand what happened and fix it. Now it's another six months delay, it's winter and the weather sucks. The worst storm in history hits them, or an earthquake, causing some minor but time-consuming damage. Licenses are delayed again over some CYA paperpushing BS. There's an election and with the new government things slow down. The GNC team discover an issue with the gyro calibration - it's an easy fix but needs re-approval. Rabbits chew through some links between control and the pad. They announce another delay until the weather is better. One of the payloads has a delay. And so on.
Then they finally light it up and it blows on the pad. Worst possible outcome. Minimum 6 months to figure it out, make repairs and try again. Payloads get nervous. Somebody gets fired. And round and aroudn it goes.
I'm just being realistic. This is how things go IRL. It's not easy.
-
Oh please, Trevor. I suspect Planet holds no illusions about how hard launch vehicle development is and the inherent risks.
"Oh, well you're skeptical of their hoped for launch rate?? How dare you! You must think you're smarter than their customers!!!" ...is the same kind of nonsense that people do with SpaceX.
I'm an huge SpaceX fan, but I've been following this field for a few years, and it's quite obvious that things tend not to go as well as people hope, and I try to base my expectations of SpaceX's operations accordingly. The same applies to RL (although I'm not much of a fan because they're not pursuing reuse). And I can assure you that their customers are fully aware of this. At least, a company like Planet or especially NASA, who has launched multiple payloads now, most certainly is.
Just because there's no way RL is launching 10 times in 2017 doesn't mean it's dumb to sign up as an early customer.
-
I'm not quite as pessimistic as ringsider (I think they'll get at least one successful flight off before the end of 2017), but I do agree that getting to 10 flights their first year seems to be very optimistic, when SpaceX still hasn't hit that rate even though they've been flying vehicles for 8yrs now. RL isn't pushing the technology as hard, and seems less likely to be constantly iterating on the design once it's in operations, but banking on them being able to fly several successful missions by year end just seems naively optimistic.
~Jon
-
..getting to 10 flights their first year seems to be very optimistic, when SpaceX still hasn't hit that rate..
Much smaller vehicle, components and operations, though. SpaceX never even tried to prepare F1 for that kind of rate.
Electron makes no sense if its not prepared for high production, integration and launch rate from get go. That includes debugging launches.
-
. It was Ringsider 2019 for first orbital launch at prompted my reply.
Given Moon Express place in queue I'd be surprised if they launch in 2017.
-
. It was Ringsider 2019 for first orbital launch at prompted my reply.
Given Moon Express place in queue I'd be surprised if they launch in 2017.
Successful launch in 2019. That's not unrealistic for a new launcher.
I think they will fire something this year, but successfully achieve orbit? That is a big step.
And that's why I said that job advert I posted a few replies ago for a PR Manager had some interesting language, about managing expectations....
"Crisis management, contingency planning and expectation management"
Even if they get it away, I bet all the language in advance will be "cautiously optimistic but of course it is the first time so we also anticipate some issues. It's not uncommon to have some failures in the early days, and we have taken that into account in our test flight planning." and so on.
-
Rocket Lab USA has planned to move almost the entire operation home to the US. - Wonder if it's to do wit Trump?
-
Rocket Lab USA has planned to move almost the entire operation home to the US...
Source ? I think that would not be possible, they have a large development team in Auckland
Meanwhile, some tidbits but not much new:
http://gisborneherald.co.nz/localnews/2628964-135/almost-ready-to-rocket-at-mahia
THE COUNTDOWN is on for the Rocket Lab test phase, with three rockets close to completion.
Two public meetings were held at Mahia over the weekend to keep local people up to date with the launch process. Rocket Lab operations vice-president Shane Fleming said the three test rockets were close to completion.
-
Rocket Lab USA has planned to move almost the entire operation home to the US. - Wonder if it's to do wit Trump?
Ha! I'd have thought Trump was a very good reason to move the entire operation home to New Zealand. :)
-
Meanwhile, some tidbits but not much new:
http://gisborneherald.co.nz/localnews/2628964-135/almost-ready-to-rocket-at-mahia
THE COUNTDOWN is on for the Rocket Lab test phase, with three rockets close to completion.
Two public meetings were held at Mahia over the weekend to keep local people up to date with the launch process. Rocket Lab operations vice-president Shane Fleming said the three test rockets were close to completion.
Three test rockets?? Interesting. That's the same number we've seen in build. If that's the case it doesn't seem likely there'll be any customer's payloads going upwards for a few months yet. :(
-
It's pretty common to launch some payloads even on test launches. At a very steep discount as it's no better than, say 50% odds they'll succeed.
-
It's pretty common to launch some payloads even on test launches. At a very steep discount as it's no better than, say 50% odds they'll succeed.
If that's the case, perhaps said payload should have designed-in Plan B capability for "exploration of the depths of the Pacific Ocean".. or at least Plan C "atmospheric sampling" on the way down. :P
-
It's pretty common to launch some payloads even on test launches. At a very steep discount as it's no better than, say 50% odds they'll succeed.
If that's the case, perhaps said payload should have designed-in Plan B capability for "exploration of the depths of the Pacific Ocean".. or at least Plan C "atmospheric sampling" on the way down. :P
If payloads could be duplicated at low cost, some loss in launch could be accepted .
In a Cubesat program, the major cost is usually development (including salary of team), not manufacture.
-
In a Cubesat program, the major cost is usually development (including salary of team), not manufacture.
Depends on the cubesat. You can burn over $100K on off the shelf parts easy
-
Rocket Lab USA has planned to move almost the entire operation home to the US. - Wonder if it's to do wit Trump?
Ha! I'd have thought Trump was a very good reason to move the entire operation home to New Zealand. :)
"...home to New Zealand"? Isn't it an US company? 8)
And as some insider in a leading position assured, the company will move to the homeland.
-
Rocket Lab USA has planned to move almost the entire operation home to the US. - Wonder if it's to do wit Trump?
Ha! I'd have thought Trump was a very good reason to move the entire operation home to New Zealand. :)
"...home to New Zealand"? Isn't it an US company? 8)
And as some insider in a leading position assured, the company will move to the homeland.
RocketLab was founded in New Zealand by New Zealanders, NZ is 'the homeland'. They only switched to being formally a US company a few years ago, and only to reduce the regulatory hurdles.
-
They do plan to manufacture and launch in USA at some stage. This would be in addition to NZ operation.
I think there is some requirements for domestic manufacturing for government launches.
Bob Richard from Moon Express said March for 1st launch. From webinar comment a couple days ago.
-
It's pretty common to launch some payloads even on test launches. At a very steep discount as it's no better than, say 50% odds they'll succeed.
If that's the case, perhaps said payload should have designed-in Plan B capability for "exploration of the depths of the Pacific Ocean".. or at least Plan C "atmospheric sampling" on the way down. :P
That would be a very kerbal thing to do.
-
They do plan to manufacture and launch in USA at some stage. This would be in addition to NZ operation.
I think there is some requirements for domestic manufacturing for government launches.
I'll add that it's no secret that Peter Beck (a Kiwi) has spent most of the last few years travelling between NZ and the USA... and I don't think that was just for holidays or to build up frequent-flyer miles.
And if I know anything at all about Kiwis it's that, even if the name on the door has a "USA" in it to keep the locals happy, they would never consider themselves American.
-
They do plan to manufacture and launch in USA at some stage. This would be in addition to NZ operation.
I think there is some requirements for domestic manufacturing for government launches.
I'll add that it's no secret that Peter Beck (a Kiwi) has spent most of the last few years travelling between NZ and the USA... and I don't think that was just for holidays or to build up frequent-flyer miles.
And if I know anything at all about Kiwis it's that, even if the name on the door has a "USA" in it to keep the locals happy, they would never consider themselves American.
Why do those immigrants refuse to integrate? :D ;)
-
They do plan to manufacture and launch in USA at some stage. This would be in addition to NZ operation.
I think there is some requirements for domestic manufacturing for government launches.
Bob Richard from Moon Express said March for 1st launch. From webinar comment a couple days ago.
Or maybe ITAR issues.
-
While it's unfortunate that in ways they lost some sovereignty and national pride by incorporating in the US, it probably makes good business sense in that they stand a better chance at potentially gaining what could easily be their single biggest customer; the US gov with all its various agencies.
-
They do plan to manufacture and launch in USA at some stage. This would be in addition to NZ operation.
I think there is some requirements for domestic manufacturing for government launches.
Bob Richard from Moon Express said March for 1st launch. From webinar comment a couple days ago.
Or maybe ITAR issues.
Investor, ITAR and major customer driven. Planet shares the same VCs.
-
A couple of local news articles.
http://gisborneherald.co.nz/localnews/2638644-135/rocket-lab-creating-more-jobs-for
"Cafe Mahia rebranded as Rocket Cafe a couple of weeks ago. The owner has new signage up and she has changed the menu, so that’s exciting, and she employed five new staff.”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/88021427/and-we-are-almost-go-for-kiwi-rocket-launch-in-northern-hawkes-bay
The company is aiming for its first launch sometime after the holiday season to minimise disruption given nearby Mahia's popularity over summer.
Beck also wants to avoid "launch fever" – the temptation to cut corners at the last minute to get the rocket off the ground.
"We'll go when we're ready."
- Stuff
-
A couple of local news articles.
.................
"We'll go when we're ready."
I still think it's interesting that even at the point where they're almost ready to launch, it seems very few people in New Zealand (well, those I've talked to in Auckland anyways) either know or care. "This is NZ. We don't do rockets here." I put that down to (a) ridiculous levels of security (maybe normal in the USA but not in NZ) and (b) piece-meal press releases.
Hopefully the first launch will get people's attention...
-
A couple of local news articles.
.................
"We'll go when we're ready."
I still think it's interesting that even at the point where they're almost ready to launch, it seems very few people in New Zealand (well, those I've talked to in Auckland anyways) either know or care. "This is NZ. We don't do rockets here." I put that down to (a) ridiculous levels of security (maybe normal in the USA but not in NZ) and (b) piece-meal press releases.
Hopefully the first launch will get people's attention...
You're right about little local interest, but I think you're wrong about it being due to a "ridiculous levels of security", rather I think it's just that Beck and RocketLab aren't into beating their own drum in the media, the reason being that there's no gain for them in doing so, they're not after an endless flow of public money, public approval or fame. Often a low key approach can make running things easier, after-all, few of their customers are followers of the NZ media.
-
An exploding LV will definitely get them media coverage in NZ and international. I'm hoping for a normal launch.
-
An exploding LV will definitely get them media coverage in NZ and international. I'm hoping for a normal launch.
So am I.. but the alternative would be more spectacular. ;D
-
Launch complex complete and launch weeks away. Looks beautiful! Credit: Rocketlab
-
Launch complex complete and launch weeks away. Looks beautiful! Credit: Rocketlab
are these Rocket sheep??
-
Launch complex complete and launch weeks away. Looks beautiful! Credit: Rocketlab
are these Rocket sheep??
I see what you did there...
-
"are these Rocket sheep??"
No, perfectly ordinary sheep. But they are grazing on Rocket lettuce.
-
Launch complex complete and launch weeks away. Looks beautiful! Credit: Rocketlab
Somehow i wonder, if erosion of the cliff edge does pose some threat to the pad?
-
Somehow i wonder, if erosion of the cliff edge does pose some threat to the pad?
Probably not within the next century. Takes a while to wear away rock, they'll have plenty of time to move operations elsewhere
-
According to this thesis (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/33052424_Shore_Platform_observation_at_Tatapouri_and_Mahia_Peninsula_New_Zealand), coastal erosion on the Mahia peninsula maxes out at under 2cm a year; should be fine for a good while.
-
http://www.aip.net.nz/pdf/supplements/aip_supp_2feb17.pdf
-
That looks like a non polar 50-ish degree inclination orbit target for whatever they launch first. ::)
-
That looks like a non polar 50-ish degree inclination orbit target for whatever they laumch first. ::)
It could also be a good trajectory for their test flights into the ocean.
Apart from an illegal fishing vessel or two ::) ..there's pretty much nothing to hit in that direction.
-
Rocket Lab VLM patents are being rejected by the USPTO examiners:
https://register.epo.org/ipfwretrieve?apn=US.201213419810.A&lng=en
They have filed a few other applications as preliminary US patents, not yet public however.
-
Rocket Lab VLM patents are being rejected by the USPTO examiners:
https://register.epo.org/ipfwretrieve?apn=US.201213419810.A&lng=en
They have filed a few other applications as preliminary US patents, not yet public however.
Huh? What gives?? They aren't using a Liquid Monopropellant, are they? At least not at the moment.. ???
-
Huh? What gives?? They aren't using a Liquid Monopropellant, are they? At least not at the moment.. ???
Earlier work. See http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/08/01/rocket-labs-history/
-
Here's some big news:
Rocket Lab's first Electron vehicle has arrived at its launch site south of Gisborne in what the New Zealand company says is an important milestone for the space industry.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11801629 (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11801629)
Along with awesome close up video of her innards!
-
Here's some big news: Rocket Lab's first Electron vehicle has arrived at its launch site south of Gisborne in what the New Zealand company says is an important milestone for the space industry.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11801629 (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11801629)
Along with awesome close up video of her innards!
Just in case members are not able to access that article:
Electron Arrives at Rocket Lab Launch Complex 1
Rocket Lab
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFnTpURe7UI?t=001
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFnTpURe7UI
-
I love how the text at the beginning of the video says that the arrival occurred on "16 February 2017", when it's actually still February 15th here in Arizona when that video was posted.
Thank goodness the launch times are generally posted in UTC as well ;D
On a slightly more serious note, I find it interesting that it almost looks like they would assemble the engine section separately and then attach it to the bottom of the tankage shown here. I doubt we'll ever really know for sure, but it's perhaps something to take away from this video.
-
Interesting indeed. Good to see, and a cute name "It's Just a Test". Very New Zealand sense of humor.
Still think it will be September before they fly. This is s big step but still a ton of work to do.
One thing to notice. Rocket Lab have polluted the marketplace with their old $4.9M per launch figure, but this report sets the record straight based on actual pricing: "Customers will pay about $6.8 million per launch". This is more accurate, in fact I think it will be closer to $7.5M by the time they fly it, based on their internet pricing.
Just to be clear $6.8m is almost a 40% increase over the original price, but I still hear people quoting their original figure when discussing if X or Y can compete with Rocket Lab.
-
I love how the text at the beginning of the video says that the arrival occurred on "16 February 2017", when it's actually still February 15th here in Arizona when that video was posted.
That's because they are 20 hours in front of you! :-) Here are some photos from the video.
-
On a slightly more serious note, I find it interesting that it almost looks like they would assemble the engine section separately and then attach it to the bottom of the tankage shown here. I doubt we'll ever really know for sure, but it's perhaps something to take away from this video.
I think the battery pack is not shown in that video either, those are just the S1 tanks. The shipping container is 12m OL, and I posted a table some time ago that shows the dimension of the full S1 is 12.1m, so they certainly have to split it for transport. That segment is probably 9m or so, based on a 1.2m diameter.
-
Interesting indeed. Good to see, and a cute name "It's Just a Test". Very New Zealand sense of humor.
Still think it will be September before they fly. This is s big step but still a ton of work to do.
One thing to notice. Rocket Lab have polluted the marketplace with their old $4.9M per launch figure, but this report sets the record straight based on actual pricing: "Customers will pay about $6.8 million per launch". This is more accurate, in fact I think it will be closer to $7.5M by the time they fly it, based on their internet pricing.
Just to be clear $6.8m is almost a 40% increase over the original price, but I still hear people quoting their original figure when discussing if X or Y can compete with Rocket Lab.
This local article price is in local currency unless stated otherrwise, so NZD6.8M which is USD4.9M
-
Interesting indeed. Good to see, and a cute name "It's Just a Test". Very New Zealand sense of humor.
Still think it will be September before they fly. This is s big step but still a ton of work to do.
One thing to notice. Rocket Lab have polluted the marketplace with their old $4.9M per launch figure, but this report sets the record straight based on actual pricing: "Customers will pay about $6.8 million per launch". This is more accurate, in fact I think it will be closer to $7.5M by the time they fly it, based on their internet pricing.
Just to be clear $6.8m is almost a 40% increase over the original price, but I still hear people quoting their original figure when discussing if X or Y can compete with Rocket Lab.
This local article price is in local currency unless stated otherrwise, so NZD6.8M which is USD4.9M
Well in that case it's wrong - you just have to add up the prices on the website for a rideshare launch:-
4 x 1U @ US$77k = US$308k
10 x 3U @ US$240k = US$2.4m
4 x 6U @ US$480k = US$1.92m
2 x 12U @ US$960k = US$1.92m
Grand total = US$6.548m
-
Interesting indeed. Good to see, and a cute name "It's Just a Test". Very New Zealand sense of humor.
Still think it will be September before they fly. This is s big step but still a ton of work to do.
One thing to notice. Rocket Lab have polluted the marketplace with their old $4.9M per launch figure, but this report sets the record straight based on actual pricing: "Customers will pay about $6.8 million per launch". This is more accurate, in fact I think it will be closer to $7.5M by the time they fly it, based on their internet pricing.
Just to be clear $6.8m is almost a 40% increase over the original price, but I still hear people quoting their original figure when discussing if X or Y can compete with Rocket Lab.
This local article price is in local currency unless stated otherrwise, so NZD6.8M which is USD4.9M
Well in that case it's wrong - you just have to add up the prices on the website for a rideshare launch:-
4 x 1U @ US$77k = US$308k
10 x 3U @ US$240k = US$2.4m
4 x 6U @ US$480k = US$1.92m
2 x 12U @ US$960k = US$1.92m
Grand total = US$6.548m
IMO, it's very reasonable that combining payloads comes at a premium (per U) over having a dedicated rocket. A 34% premium does not strike me as abnormal for space launches.
-
On a slightly more serious note, I find it interesting that it almost looks like they would assemble the engine section separately and then attach it to the bottom of the tankage shown here. I doubt we'll ever really know for sure, but it's perhaps something to take away from this video.
I think the battery pack is not shown in that video either, those are just the S1 tanks. The shipping container is 12m OL, and I posted a table some time ago that shows the dimension of the full S1 is 12.1m, so they certainly have to split it for transport. That segment is probably 9m or so, based on a 1.2m diameter.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the way the jobs on the RocketLab website are split between their L.A. HQ and Auckland are any indication, wouldn't that be because the propulsion systems are manufactured in the US and the rest of the rocket is manufactured in New Zealand?
-
.. wouldn't that be because the propulsion systems are manufactured in the US and the rest of the rocket is manufactured in New Zealand?
No, not correct. All of the team that makes propulsion is in NZ.
-
On a slightly more serious note, I find it interesting that it almost looks like they would assemble the engine section separately and then attach it to the bottom of the tankage shown here. I doubt we'll ever really know for sure, but it's perhaps something to take away from this video.
I think the battery pack is not shown in that video either, those are just the S1 tanks. The shipping container is 12m OL, and I posted a table some time ago that shows the dimension of the full S1 is 12.1m, so they certainly have to split it for transport. That segment is probably 9m or so, based on a 1.2m diameter.
It's more than just the S1 tankage, but yes it's missing the engines (and the pointy end in the video of it coming off the truck) which are presumably fitted out separately on-site. It makes sense to me that they wouldn't ship the stage with engines fitted - the road from Auckland would make a right mess of gimballed mounts or anything sensitive shipped horizontally like that. There were two trucks in the video - maybe the 'accessories' were in the other truck?
I have been rather busy lately (and I know he is too) but it does seem that the only time I hear from Shaun these days is on Rocketlab's videos... {sigh} Oh well, that's rocket science for ya. :)
-
No, not correct. All of the team that makes propulsion is in NZ.
Huntington Beach will be guidance set manufacture, avionics manufacture, electronics manufacture and propulsion manufacturing.
New Zealand will be composite structures, propulsion test, final integration and launch.
Let's just say then that the rocket in that last video was NOT built in the USA. :)
-
Any news yet on preparations?
-
Any news yet on preparations?
Fair go.. it's only been a couple of weeks since the first rocket got there and they still need to prove the stand properly (hydraulics, fuelling, controls, communications, etc.). All they've publicly said thus far is that the first launch will take place in ''the coming months'', dependent on equipment testing and weather on the Mahia Peninsula. The AIP Supplement gives them until 21 June to start launching something, based on a few days notice, so I'd give them at least another month before getting too worried.
When they're ready to go they'll let everyone know. :)
-
Rocket Lab is announcing today a $75M Series D round that allows it to scale up production of its Electron rocket:
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/844172613979004928 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/844172613979004928)
http://spacenews.com/rocket-lab-raises-75-million-to-scale-up-launch-vehicle-production/ (http://spacenews.com/rocket-lab-raises-75-million-to-scale-up-launch-vehicle-production/)
Edit to add:
Rocket Lab says it’s raised $148M to date, and claims a valuation of more than $1B. First Electron launch in the “coming months.”
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/844173153802768384 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/844173153802768384)
-
Rocket Lab is announcing today a $75M Series D round that allows it to scale up production of its Electron rocket:
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/844172613979004928 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/844172613979004928)
http://spacenews.com/rocket-lab-raises-75-million-to-scale-up-launch-vehicle-production/ (http://spacenews.com/rocket-lab-raises-75-million-to-scale-up-launch-vehicle-production/)
Edit to add:
Rocket Lab says it’s raised $148M to date, and claims a valuation of more than $1B. First Electron launch in the “coming months.”
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/844173153802768384 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/844173153802768384)
So the quiet private C round was about $30-35m on top of the initial B of about $15m plus the public funding. That makes complete sense.
This is why they delayed this first launch - they need their bank account full before the first launch because if it goes wrong nobody will back them at that point. They need cash to weather any issues with the first 2-3 attempts. Smart.
I am still backing September for launch #1.
-
Production of engines and electronics in California. Airframe and tanks NZ?.
Assembly and launch NZ, for now at least.
-
I think the battery pack is not shown in that video either, those are just the S1 tanks. The shipping container is 12m OL, and I posted a table some time ago that shows the dimension of the full S1 is 12.1m, so they certainly have to split it for transport. That segment is probably 9m or so, based on a 1.2m diameter.
You can get ISO standard containers that are 13.7 m /45 ft long, so container length alone is not a reason to split the stage.
-
Production of engines and electronics in California. Airframe and tanks NZ?.
Assembly and launch NZ, for now at least.
Good article in Aviation Week summing up the current situation for RocketLab: http://aviationweek.com/space/rocket-lab-sets-production-boost?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20170322_AW-05_169&sfvc4enews=42 (http://aviationweek.com/space/rocket-lab-sets-production-boost?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20170322_AW-05_169&sfvc4enews=42)
-
I think the battery pack is not shown in that video either, those are just the S1 tanks. The shipping container is 12m OL, and I posted a table some time ago that shows the dimension of the full S1 is 12.1m, so they certainly have to split it for transport. That segment is probably 9m or so, based on a 1.2m diameter.
You can get ISO standard containers that are 13.7 m /45 ft long, so container length alone is not a reason to split the stage.
Not in this part of the world. Standard shipping containers are either 20' or 40' -- that's it. You can get some extra height or p'raps side-opening if you wish, but no-one in these parts has their trucks, ships, straddles, storage areas nor anything else set up for anything other than this.
-
How hard would it be to scale the electron up?
A reusable first stage with 30-40 engines, A reusable second stage with 5ish engines (vtol), and a single integrated small-ish-sat--3rd-stage with storable propellants?
Kind of fully-reusable without being fully-orbital as the small-sat--3rd-stage would achieve orbit. The small-sat having an enlarged tank and an additional orbital insertion engine. Poorer 3rd stage (storable) isp might be compensated for by reduced mass fraction afforded by sharing the enlarged small-sat tankage with the small station keeping engines.
[a bit like the (integrated?) third stage that takes a satellite from GTO to geostationary orbit, only to LEO and staging sub-orbitally]
delivering a single small-ish-sat with full-reusability, but without the faff of ridesharing.
-
How hard would it be to scale the electron up?
A reusable first stage with 30-40 engines, A reusable second stage with 5ish engines (vtol), and a single integrated small-ish-sat--3rd-stage with storable propellants?
With that many changes, it'd probably be easier to just start from scratch. And Rocketlab (so far) hasn't shown much, if any, interest in reuse. Such a design would also go against their mantra--they're targeting easy and cheap manufacturing so that they can build lots of rockets very quickly. Building larger, more expensive (but reusable) stages to launch the same payloads doesn't fit with that business model.
-
With that many changes, it'd probably be easier to just start from scratch. And Rocketlab (so far) hasn't shown much, if any, interest in reuse. Such a design would also go against their mantra--they're targeting easy and cheap manufacturing so that they can build lots of rockets very quickly. Building larger, more expensive (but reusable) stages to launch the same payloads doesn't fit with that business model.
I wouldn't be surprised if they have a bigger rocket on the drawing board and are just waiting for funding.
-
With that many changes, it'd probably be easier to just start from scratch. And Rocketlab (so far) hasn't shown much, if any, interest in reuse. Such a design would also go against their mantra--they're targeting easy and cheap manufacturing so that they can build lots of rockets very quickly. Building larger, more expensive (but reusable) stages to launch the same payloads doesn't fit with that business model.
I wouldn't be surprised if they have a bigger rocket on the drawing board and are just waiting for funding.
I would. Both their current manufacturing assembly facilities and their launch pad don't allow for anything much larger.. and besides bigger does not necessarily mean greater returns in the market they're playing in. Perhaps they'll do 'bigger' in the States in years to come, on a drawing board they haven't bought yet, on a launch pad built by others, but for now methinks they have their hands full with the rocket they have now.
-
for now methinks they have their hands full with the rocket they have now.
Agreed, but since when has that stopped the business guys.
-
With that many changes, it'd probably be easier to just start from scratch. And Rocketlab (so far) hasn't shown much, if any, interest in reuse. Such a design would also go against their mantra--they're targeting easy and cheap manufacturing so that they can build lots of rockets very quickly. Building larger, more expensive (but reusable) stages to launch the same payloads doesn't fit with that business model.
I wouldn't be surprised if they have a bigger rocket on the drawing board and are just waiting for funding.
What might be the main non-linear costs of scaling the electron up by 5 x to allow the 2nd stage to have a low enough thrust to weight ratio to return vertically on a single engine.
And are there advantages to letting a single small-sat (and 3rd stage) take over some of the dv for orbital insertion, in terms of reducing the re-entry heating on the second stage?
-
What might be the main non-linear costs of scaling the electron up by 5 x to allow the 2nd stage to have a low enough thrust to weight ratio to return vertically on a single engine.
First, there is no "scaling the electron up"--it really would be a whole different rocket at that point. And thrust-to-weight ratio on the second stage isn't enough to get stage recovery--those engines would need to be vacuum-optimized, and that would cause problems (e.g. flow separation) on the way back. You'd either need a retractable nozzle extension, a second landing engine, or some other scheme. Plus, you'd have to reinforce the second stage to be able to withstand reentry. That's not an easy task, and not a problem that RocketLab has ever even started working on. A third stage is an even worse proposition, because it destroys the cost-saving benefits of reusing the second stage. Why not just reuse the first stage and expend the second? Unless you can do it all with two stages, reusing the second stage isn't worth it, because you have to build a larger and more expensive first and second stage plus a third stage which will cost just about much as the original expendable second stage.
And again, RocketLab is not currently focused on reusability. They want a cheap and quick to build expendable rocket.
Maybe they'll worry about reusability in the future, but for now they haven't even launched a demo mission yet.
-
For now a low cost reliable ELV is all they need to worry about. RLV will come eventually.
-
What might be the main non-linear costs of scaling the electron up by 5 x to allow the 2nd stage to have a low enough thrust to weight ratio to return vertically on a single engine.
First, there is no "scaling the electron up"--it really would be a whole different rocket at that point. And thrust-to-weight ratio on the second stage isn't enough to get stage recovery--those engines would need to be vacuum-optimized, and that would cause problems (e.g. flow separation) on the way back. You'd either need a retractable nozzle extension, a second landing engine, or some other scheme. Plus, you'd have to reinforce the second stage to be able to withstand reentry. That's not an easy task, and not a problem that RocketLab has ever even started working on. A third stage is an even worse proposition, because it destroys the cost-saving benefits of reusing the second stage. Why not just reuse the first stage and expend the second? Unless you can do it all with two stages, reusing the second stage isn't worth it, because you have to build a larger and more expensive first and second stage plus a third stage which will cost just about much as the original expendable second stage.
And again, RocketLab is not currently focused on reusability. They want a cheap and quick to build expendable rocket.
Maybe they'll worry about reusability in the future, but for now they haven't even launched a demo mission yet.
The engines would be the same. 4 vacuum engines encircling a sea level engine on the 2nd-stage. This is pretty analogous to the configuration of the ITS upper-stage which would have 6 vacuum engines around 3 sea level engines. Why would there be flow separation issues if the 2nd stage is landing on the central sea-level engine?
New features, tank, tps, legs (unless it can caught), and programming.
You sound like you are connected to Rocket Lab, though.
-
You sound like you are connected to Rocket Lab, though.
Not connected to them in any way. I'm just fully aware that they're a company who's still trying to get off the ground, and has only scraped together enough investment to cover their first few flights. Designing rocket that's more ambitious than anything currently on the market when they don't even have anything flying yet is ludicrous. Give it time. Once Electron is flying and they've got money coming in, we can see where they want to go with this. Until then, they aren't going to worry about reuse.
-
Apparently Rocket Lab doesn't want any photos of crashes, to protect IPR:-
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/89223394/rocket-lab-wants-to-stop-you-taking-photos-if-rocket-crashes
What would you get from a photo? Tanks? Engine tech?
Actually he explicitly mentions turbopumps which is weird because a) there is a lot of data out there and b) being electric, they don't have any...
-
Wow, Rocket Lab really hates this new NZ space legislation:-
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/sc/submissions-and-advice/document/51SCFDT_EVI_00DBHOH_BILL71017_1_A541066/rocket-lab
They submitted almost as many pages of comments as the bill itself has...
Could they be brought down by their own government and that lovely launch site ends up being a huge white elephant?
-
Given any crashed Electron will endup being underwater I don't see it being an issue.
-
Given any crashed Electron will endup being underwater I don't see it being an issue.
Beck explicitly says he wants the "no photos" law because some debris could up on land, and discusses reusability as well as IPR and security (in the filing). He really doesn't want people taking photos of what is inside that rocket.
-
Rocket Lab Verified account @RocketLabUSA 15m15 minutes ago
Electron standing tall at @RocketLabUSA Launch Complex 1. First test flight in coming months. Stay tuned.
https://twitter.com/RocketLabUSA/status/849280022082981890 (https://twitter.com/RocketLabUSA/status/849280022082981890)
-
Rocket Lab Verified account @RocketLabUSA 15m15 minutes ago
Electron standing tall at @RocketLabUSA Launch Complex 1. First test flight in coming months. Stay tuned.
https://twitter.com/RocketLabUSA/status/849280022082981890 (https://twitter.com/RocketLabUSA/status/849280022082981890)
That is cool. Still a September launch though!
-
It's nice to see a new rocket vertical on a new pad!
-
Diminutive, battery powered, plastic rocket. This will be interesting.
- Ed Kyle
-
Diminutive, battery powered, plastic rocket. This will be interesting.
Using the term "plastic" for carbon composite is not just unnecessarily insulting, it's also misleading at best and inaccurate at worst.
-
Diminutive, battery powered, plastic rocket. This will be interesting.
Using the term "plastic" for carbon composite is not just unnecessarily insulting, it's also misleading at best and inaccurate at worst.
Like calling 787 a "plastic" plane...
-
Diminutive, battery powered, plastic rocket. This will be interesting.
Using the term "plastic" for carbon composite is not just unnecessarily insulting, it's also misleading at best and inaccurate at worst.
Technically he is correct though as it is CFRP - Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic or Polymer. Either is accurate.
-
Diminutive, battery powered, plastic rocket. This will be interesting.
Using the term "plastic" for carbon composite is not just unnecessarily insulting, it's also misleading at best and inaccurate at worst.
Not meant as an insult. The first liquid fueled "plastic rocket" will make history. LauncherOne is plastic too!
- Ed Kyle
-
Diminutive, battery powered, plastic rocket. This will be interesting.
Using the term "plastic" for carbon composite is not just unnecessarily insulting, it's also misleading at best and inaccurate at worst.
Like calling 787 a "plastic" plane...
F-18is often called "plastic bug"
-
Diminutive, battery powered, plastic rocket. This will be interesting.
Using the term "plastic" for carbon composite is not just unnecessarily insulting, it's also misleading at best and inaccurate at worst.
Like calling 787 a "plastic" plane...
F-18is often called "plastic bug"
Interesting.. given there is so little CF in an F-18.
By comparison, the 787 gets the "plastic plane' moniker by virtue of it being the first commercial aircraft designed to be built using more CF composites than metal. ..which is also one reason (excessive weight) it took so long to get the first few literally off the ground.
-
More accurate to call it a graphite plane than plastic. Carbon fiber reinforced plastic is still mostly carbon fiber (i.e. graphite fiber).
-
More accurate to call it a graphite plane than plastic. Carbon fiber reinforced plastic is still mostly carbon fiber (i.e. graphite fiber).
Sure.. but (a) "plastic plane" rolls off journo's tongues a little easier than "graphite plane" and (b) after years of sucking on lead pencils, Joe Public probably wouldn't recognise graphite even if he saw it. ;)
-
More accurate to call it a graphite plane than plastic. Carbon fiber reinforced plastic is still mostly carbon fiber (i.e. graphite fiber).
Sure.. but (a) "plastic plane" rolls off journo's tongues a little easier than "graphite plane" and (b) after years of sucking on lead pencils, Joe Public probably wouldn't recognise graphite even if he saw it. ;)
Carbon plane!
-
Carbon plane!
Where you been the last decade or so? Carbon is a dirty word (physically and literally), don'tcha know?!? Think "carbon dioxide", "carbon emissions", "carbon pollution"...
If the general public ever discover RL's shiny black missile is made of carbon[1] and is destined to either (a) burn up in the atmosphere or (b) pollute the Southern Ocean, their PR credits would go negative in a heartbeat.
[1] = See what I did there? I got this thread back on topic! ;D
-
Carbon plane!
Where you been the last decade or so? Carbon is a dirty word (physically and literally), don'tcha know?!? Think "carbon dioxide", "carbon emissions", "carbon pollution"...
If the general public ever discover RL's shiny black missile is made of carbon[1] and is destined to either (a) burn up in the atmosphere or (b) pollute the Southern Ocean, their PR credits would go negative in a heartbeat.
[1] = See what I did there? I got this thread back on topic! ;D
I know - 'twas in jest. "Carbon Plane" will be as successful as a lead zeppelin. (To mix my metaphors)
-
Composite
Scaled Composites
-
Composite
Scaled Composites
::)
-
Cyclone hits area of Rocket lab launch site
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C9L6XaNUIAEwZo8.jpg)
"Heavy downpours, gale force winds of 150 kph and storm surges up to five metres are predicted to batter the east coast."
"A month’s worth of rain is expected to fall in the space of a day on the east coast, with the ground already sodden and covered in up to a metre of mud and debris."
Simulation of wind shows highest speeds at Mahia peninsula:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-187.07,-44.68,1514/loc=128.371,-13.984?abcnewsembedheight=400 (https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-187.07,-44.68,1514/loc=128.371,-13.984?abcnewsembedheight=400)
-
New article, although I don't think any new info, on Rocket Lab & CubeSats:
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/04/how-a-6-million-launch-vehicle-could-transform-the-satellite-business/ (https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/04/how-a-6-million-launch-vehicle-could-transform-the-satellite-business/)
-
An exciting day for us as we unveil the mission patch for ‘It’s a Test - the first ever orbital launch attempt from a private facility.
https://twitter.com/rocketlabusa/status/862492473771347968 (https://twitter.com/rocketlabusa/status/862492473771347968)
-
Rocket Lab has quietly set first test dates in a new NOTAM, 22 May - 3 June:-
(http://i.imgur.com/5biXzBw.png)
NZ 106(T)/17 SOUTH PACIFIC – New Zealand – Hawke Bay, Bounty Islands and Southern Ocean. Rocket Launch and Space Debris
1. A hazardous rocket launch test operation will be taking place between 22 May and 3 June 2017 within the following zones: (Coords follow)
2. A marine reserve area will be in effect within Launch Hazard Area A in accordance with Hawke’s Bay Regional Council Navigation Safety Bylaw 2012 3.8.
3. Rocket Lab Range Control can be contacted in the vicinity of the Mahia Peninsula during launch operations on VHF...
4. Mariners are advised to exercise caution when navigating in and around the areas.
http://www.linz.govt.nz/sites/default/files/media/ntm/files/20170512-nz10-099109.pdf
Here's a plot of the debris boxes, showing flight path:-
(http://i.imgur.com/uhFLhI6.png)
Distance to far end of the first box is 1020km downrange, furthest point is 2195km.
-
Dates!
-
An exciting day for us as we unveil the mission patch for ‘It’s a Test - the first ever orbital launch attempt from a private facility.
https://twitter.com/rocketlabusa/status/862492473771347968 (https://twitter.com/rocketlabusa/status/862492473771347968)
That explains all the delays, mission critical patches take time to develop.
-
Dates!
Indeed. This is getting exciting again.
-
Have they announced that they have done/will do a WDR and/or static fire yet? That will go a long way in confirming the creditability of this fligh's date.
Also I thought that they cannot launch deep in winter due to weather constraints?
-
Have they announced that they have done/will do a WDR and/or static fire yet? That will go a long way in confirming the creditability of this fligh's date.
Also I thought that they cannot launch deep in winter due to weather constraints?
Well, they're not going to be doing anything for a little while yet:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/92452373/doublewhammy-marks-round-four-for-bad-weather
The access road is dirt, remember? Even after the storms clear, they still have to get to the site.
-
Have they announced that they have done/will do a WDR and/or static fire yet? That will go a long way in confirming the creditability of this fligh's date.
Also I thought that they cannot launch deep in winter due to weather constraints?
Well, they're not going to be doing anything for a little while yet:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/92452373/doublewhammy-marks-round-four-for-bad-weather
The access road is dirt, remember? Even after the storms clear, they still have to get to the site.
But what to make of the notice to mariners a few posts above? :o
-
But what to make of the notice to mariners a few posts above? :o
If we know anything about the guy at all, Mr Beck would have to be one of the world's greatest optimists. :)
One thing that holds true about that part of the world is this: If you don't like the weather, come back in 10 minutes. My guess is they're hoping the weather will clear away long enough and everything dry out enough to get some testing done.
-
http://spacenews.com/rocket-lab-sets-date-for-first-electron-launch/ (http://spacenews.com/rocket-lab-sets-date-for-first-electron-launch/)
Rocket Lab sets date for first Electron launch
Rocket Lab, the U.S.-New Zealand company developing the Electron small launch vehicle, plans to carry out its first flight in a window that opens May 21.
The company announced May 14 that a 10-day window for the first Electron launch, which the company has dubbed “It’s a Test,” will open at 5 p.m. Eastern May 21 (9 a.m. local time May 22) from the company’s launch site at Mahia Peninsula on New Zealand’s North Island.
........
The launch, as the company’s name for it emphasizes, is a test flight, with no satellite payload on board. The launch is the first of three such test flights Rocket Lab plans before beginning commercial launches later this year.
Rocket Lab plans to carry out the launch largely out of public view. The company said a press kit about the mission that there will be no public viewing sites in the vicinity of its New Zealand launch site for this mission. There are also no plans to webcast the launch, although the company said it will provide video footage “following a successful launch.”
-
http://spacenews.com/rocket-lab-sets-date-for-first-electron-launch/ (http://spacenews.com/rocket-lab-sets-date-for-first-electron-launch/)
Rocket Lab sets date for first Electron launch
Rocket Lab, the U.S.-New Zealand company developing the Electron small launch vehicle, plans to carry out its first flight in a window that opens May 21.
The company announced May 14 that a 10-day window for the first Electron launch, which the company has dubbed “It’s a Test,” will open at 5 p.m. Eastern May 21 (9 a.m. local time May 22) from the company’s launch site at Mahia Peninsula on New Zealand’s North Island.
........
The launch, as the company’s name for it emphasizes, is a test flight, with no satellite payload on board. The launch is the first of three such test flights Rocket Lab plans before beginning commercial launches later this year.
Rocket Lab plans to carry out the launch largely out of public view. The company said a press kit about the mission that there will be no public viewing sites in the vicinity of its New Zealand launch site for this mission. There are also no plans to webcast the launch, although the company said it will provide video footage “following a successful launch.”
I wish them well. My money is still on September.
-
No FAA license yet ..?
-
No FAA license yet ..?
Nothing published but it could be authorized. They do need one in my opinion, also to operate the launch site - US firm on a US-controlled launch site.
-
Target for 'It's a Test' - an elliptical orbit, varying between 300 - 500km at an 83 degree inclination.
https://twitter.com/rocketlabusa/status/863848986981015552 (https://twitter.com/rocketlabusa/status/863848986981015552)
-
Target for 'It's a Test' - an elliptical orbit, varying between 300 - 500km at an 83 degree inclination.
https://twitter.com/rocketlabusa/status/863848986981015552 (https://twitter.com/rocketlabusa/status/863848986981015552)
That makes complete sense. Why go sub-orbital if you can potentially go all the way? Completely agree, good luck.
-
No FAA license yet ..?
Nothing published but it could be authorized. They do need one in my opinion, also to operate the launch site - US firm on a US-controlled launch site.
Hmm. I'm not a lawyer so I'm unclear on this. If it's being done by their New Zealand subsidiary, is it US-controlled?
The operational engines being built in California would need an export license to NZ, but if RL NZ is building the rockets and operating the site, it's not immediately clear to me that the fact the company is ulimately owned by RL US puts it under US jurisdiction. Anyone clarify?
-
No FAA license yet ..?
Nothing published but it could be authorized. They do need one in my opinion, also to operate the launch site - US firm on a US-controlled launch site.
Hmm. I'm not a lawyer so I'm unclear on this. If it's being done by their New Zealand subsidiary, is it US-controlled?
The operational engines being built in California would need an export license to NZ, but if RL NZ is building the rockets and operating the site, it's not immediately clear to me that the fact the company is ulimately owned by RL US puts it under US jurisdiction. Anyone clarify?
NZ company is a 100% subsidiary of the US Inc. It's almost all public information:-
https://www.companiesoffice.govt.nz/companies/app/ui/pages/
companies/1835428?backurl=%2Fcompanies%2Fapp%2Fui%2Fpages%2Fcompanies%
2Fsearch%3Fmode%3Dstandard%26type%3Dentities%26q%3DRocket%2520lab
-
No FAA license yet ..?
Nothing published but it could be authorized. They do need one in my opinion, also to operate the launch site - US firm on a US-controlled launch site.
Hmm. I'm not a lawyer so I'm unclear on this. If it's being done by their New Zealand subsidiary, is it US-controlled?
The operational engines being built in California would need an export license to NZ, but if RL NZ is building the rockets and operating the site, it's not immediately clear to me that the fact the company is ulimately owned by RL US puts it under US jurisdiction. Anyone clarify?
I'm not a lawyer either, but there's no way to tell. They are definitely "US Persons" under the US commercial space launch laws. But that doesn't guarantee that a launch from foreign soil must be under US jurisdiction, only that the US government can assert jurisdiction. The law makes it so that a US Person can't decide to launch from the territory of Bananastan, who's government only cares about filling their pockets, and thereby effectively skirt oversight. But, if launching from the territory of a responsible government, like NZ, then that government could oversee and it would be okay. So, based on US law, there's no way to tell.
-
No FAA license yet ..?
Nothing published but it could be authorized. They do need one in my opinion, also to operate the launch site - US firm on a US-controlled launch site.
Hmm. I'm not a lawyer so I'm unclear on this. If it's being done by their New Zealand subsidiary, is it US-controlled?
The operational engines being built in California would need an export license to NZ, but if RL NZ is building the rockets and operating the site, it's not immediately clear to me that the fact the company is ulimately owned by RL US puts it under US jurisdiction. Anyone clarify?
I'm not a lawyer either, but there's no way to tell. They are definitely "US Persons" under the US commercial space launch laws. But that doesn't guarantee that a launch from foreign soil is under US jurisdiction, only that the US can assert jurisdiction. The law makes it so that a US Person can't decide to launch from the territory of Bananastan, who's government only cares about filling their pockets, and thereby effectively skirt oversight. But, if launching from the territory of a responsible government, like NZ, then that government could oversee and it would be okay. So, based on US law, there's no way to tell.
This is actually simple. Under the UN Outer Space Treaty each nation is responsible and liable for any damages caused by the actions of it's citizens / corporations with regard to space launches and space-based activities.
The ultimate party here is the US incorporated company, and the majority US-based investors in that company. So, since this is a US-domiciled vehicle, the US is liable for any damages, and it asserts regulatory control over all activities.
Employees or subsidiaries of any other nation are assumed to be subordinate to the ultimate controlling party. NZ could in principle insist on a double licence but in practice they are quite happy to let the US take the weight because NASA / FAA.
There is a practical crosscheck for majority US ownership even if you don't know the shareholders (I do because either is on the internet, but even so) - RL USA won an SBIR grant for $99k to investigate AFTS. Can't get those without majority US ownership.
-
Our team is working hard to prepare the Electron for flight. First flames before launch next week, igniters tested! #ItsaTest
https://twitter.com/rocketlabusa/status/864238091472486401 (https://twitter.com/rocketlabusa/status/864238091472486401)
-
Got one extra pic from instagram
https://www.instagram.com/p/BUIP_uYAv5I/
-
Got one extra pic from instagram
Well at least they have it pointed in the right direction ;D
-
Let's hope the gyros are ;)
-
Let's hope the gyros are ;)
Is this the first Southern Hemisphere orbital launch?
-
Let's hope the gyros are ;)
Is this the first Southern Hemisphere orbital launch?
Ninth. Four from Woomera ( two successes). Four from San Marco platform off Kenya (all successful).
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Marco_programme
Neat. Scouts hmm.
-
Rocket Lab Verified account @RocketLabUSA 54s54 seconds ago
We successfully completed a wet dress rehearsal at Rocket Lab Launch Complex 1 today. Let's hope for the same weather next week! #ItsaTest
https://twitter.com/RocketLabUSA/status/864408476096659457 (https://twitter.com/RocketLabUSA/status/864408476096659457)
-
The current weather forecast is for sun and minimal wind on the 22nd, however forecasts six days out are always iffy, doubly so in the trade latitudes
-
Let's hope the gyros are ;)
Is this the first Southern Hemisphere orbital launch?
Do you mean launch by a Southern Hemisphere country, or orbital launch from the Southern Hemisphere?
-
Let's hope the gyros are ;)
Is this the first Southern Hemisphere orbital launch?
Ninth. Four from Woomera ( two successes). Four from San Marco platform off Kenya (all successful).
I count 15 orbital launch attempts from the southern hemisphere:
* 9 Scouts from San Marco (all successful)
* 1 Redstone Sparta from Woomera (successful)
* 3 Europa-1 from Woomera (all failures)
* 2 Black Arrows from Woomera (one success, one failure)
List:
Scout-B 26.04.1967 SM San Marco 2
Redstone Sparta 29.11.1967 Wo LA-8 Wresat
Europa-1 29.11.1968 F Wo LC-6A STV 1
Europa-1 02.07.1969 F Wo LC-6A STV 2
Europa-1 12.06.1970 F Wo LC-6A STV 3
Black Arrow 02.09.1970 F Wo LA-5B Orba (X 2) / R-2 Instrument Package
Scout-B 12.12.1970 SM Explorer 42 (SAS A, Uhuru)
Scout-B 24.04.1971 SM San Marco 3
Black Arrow 28.10.1971 Wo LA-5B Prospero (X 3)
Scout-B 15.11.1971 SM Explorer 45 (SSS A)
Scout-D1 15.11.1972 SM Explorer 48 (SAS B)
Scout-D1 18.02.1974 SM San Marco 4
Scout-B1 15.10.1974 SM Ariel 5 (UK 5)
Scout-F1 07.05.1975 SM Explorer 53 (SAS C)
Scout-G1 25.03.1988 SM San Marco 5
-
Let's hope the gyros are ;)
Is this the first Southern Hemisphere orbital launch?
Ninth. Four from Woomera ( two successes). Four from San Marco platform off Kenya (all successful).
I count 15 orbital launch attempts from the southern hemisphere:
* 9 Scouts from San Marco (all successful)
* 1 Redstone Sparta from Woomera (successful)
* 3 Europa-1 from Woomera (all failures)
* 2 Black Arrows from Woomera (one success, one failure)
List:
Scout-B 26.04.1967 SM San Marco 2
Redstone Sparta 29.11.1967 Wo LA-8 Wresat
Europa-1 29.11.1968 F Wo LC-6A STV 1
Europa-1 02.07.1969 F Wo LC-6A STV 2
Europa-1 12.06.1970 F Wo LC-6A STV 3
Black Arrow 02.09.1970 F Wo LA-5B Orba (X 2) / R-2 Instrument Package
Scout-B 12.12.1970 SM Explorer 42 (SAS A, Uhuru)
Scout-B 24.04.1971 SM San Marco 3
Black Arrow 28.10.1971 Wo LA-5B Prospero (X 3)
Scout-B 15.11.1971 SM Explorer 45 (SSS A)
Scout-D1 15.11.1972 SM Explorer 48 (SAS B)
Scout-D1 18.02.1974 SM San Marco 4
Scout-B1 15.10.1974 SM Ariel 5 (UK 5)
Scout-F1 07.05.1975 SM Explorer 53 (SAS C)
Scout-G1 25.03.1988 SM San Marco 5
Being from the UK I was a bit irked to see people forgetting Black Arrow.
-
Let's hope the gyros are ;)
Is this the first Southern Hemisphere orbital launch?
Ninth. Four from Woomera ( two successes). Four from San Marco platform off Kenya (all successful).
I count 15 orbital launch attempts from the southern hemisphere:
Technically, there may be more. SeaLaunch launched 31 times from a platform that was supposed to be right on the equator. Depending on minor positioning errors, at least some of them may have been from the Southern Hemisphere.
-
Let's hope the gyros are ;)
Is this the first Southern Hemisphere orbital launch?
Ninth. Four from Woomera ( two successes). Four from San Marco platform off Kenya (all successful).
I count 15 orbital launch attempts from the southern hemisphere:
Technically, there may be more. SeaLaunch launched 31 times from a platform that was supposed to be right on the equator. Depending on minor positioning errors, at least some of them may have been from the Southern Hemisphere.
Oooh, nice nitpick point! Now we need to ask SeaLaunch for their GPS readings at launch time for each of their missions....
-
Let's hope the gyros are ;)
Is this the first Southern Hemisphere orbital launch?
Ninth. Four from Woomera ( two successes). Four from San Marco platform off Kenya (all successful).
I count 15 orbital launch attempts from the southern hemisphere:
Technically, there may be more. SeaLaunch launched 31 times from a platform that was supposed to be right on the equator. Depending on minor positioning errors, at least some of them may have been from the Southern Hemisphere.
Oooh, nice nitpick point! Now we need to ask SeaLaunch for their GPS readings at launch time for each of their missions....
Or, IIRC, there's a mission plan associated with each launch contract, that has that as well. And a mission summary as well. So you have more than a few ways to get that. There are a few of the former SeaLaunch personnel hanging around here like kq6ea, along with some former Boeing ILS who keep a low profile.
-
Looking like a "real" rocket with the LOX frosting! Good luck with the test.
-
FAA License for 3 test flights (found via Jeff Foust tweet)
Edit:
Rocket Lab USA is authorized to conduct three test launches of Electron launch vehicles from Rocket Lab Launch Complex (RLLC) in New Zealand, with each transporting an inert payload to low Earth orbit.
...
(c) On a launch azimuth of 174 degrees
-
FAA License for 3 test flights (found via Jeff Foust tweet)
Edit:
Rocket Lab USA is authorized to conduct three test launches of Electron launch vehicles from Rocket Lab Launch Complex (RLLC) in New Zealand, with each transporting an inert payload to low Earth orbit.
...
(c) On a launch azimuth of 174 degrees
There we go. Also now on the FAA website
https://www.faa.gov/data_research/commercial_space_data/licenses/ (https://www.faa.gov/data_research/commercial_space_data/licenses/)
FAA CST has control of Rocket Lab activities and the New Zealand launch site.
Hard to argue anymore that this is not a US launcher.
-
The current weather forecast is for sun and minimal wind on the 22nd, however forecasts six days out are always iffy, doubly so in the trade latitudes
Presumably you meant to say "outside of the trade latitudes"??
Although protected by the West Island to some extent and most of the North for the first few thousand feet or so, the Mahia launch site lies right on the edge of the "Roaring Forties" and, with a successful launch likely to end up in either the "Furious Fifties" or "Screaming Sixties", believe me, this is a long way south of the trades!
-
Rocket Lab Verified account @RocketLabUSA 11m11 minutes ago
Rutherford is specifically designed for Electron and is the first of its kind to use 3D printing for all primary components #ItsaTest
https://twitter.com/RocketLabUSA/status/864767665839230977 (https://twitter.com/RocketLabUSA/status/864767665839230977)
-
SPACEFLIGHT PURCHASES AN ELECTRON ROCKET FROM ROCKET LAB FOR MORE FREQUENT, AFFORDABLE RIDESHARE TO SPACE
MAY 17, 2017 JODI SORENSEN
Purchase reflects an increasing demand for mid-inclination orbits from small satellite industry
SEATTLE – May 17, 2017 — Spaceflight, the company reinventing the model for launching small satellites into space, today announced the purchase of a Rocket Lab Electron rocket to increase the frequency of its dedicated rideshare missions. The Electron is an ideal launch vehicle for dedicated and rideshare missions, especially those serving difficult-to-come-by launch destinations such as mid-inclination orbits for remote sensing satellites. In late 2015, Spaceflight began its dedicated rideshare launch service with the purchase of a SpaceX Falcon 9 and now expands the rocket partnership to Rocket Lab with the Electron.
Spaceflight purchases a Rocket Lab Electron for additional rideshare opportunities
Dedicated rideshare for smallsats is a new launch alternative that blends cost-effective rideshare pricing (where several payloads share the same launch to a specific destination) with first-class service, typically associated with buying a private rocket. Spaceflight provides multiple launch options to ensure organizations can access space when they need to, at a much lower cost than buying their own launch vehicle.
“There are numerous rideshare launches each year to Sun Synchronous Orbit, but getting to 45 to 60 degrees is hard to find, and can cost the equivalent of buying an entire rocket,” said Curt Blake, President of Spaceflight’s launch business. “We are thrilled to be working with Rocket Lab to enable our customers’ remote sensing missions that require high revisit time over North America, Europe, and the Middle East.”
Peter Beck, Rocket Lab CEO added, “The Electron is an entirely carbon-composite vehicle that is designed to carry payloads of 225kg to an elliptical orbit and up to 150kg to a nominal 500km sun synchronous low earth orbit. We look forward to expanding this relationship and operational manifest with Spaceflight as we increase our market reach and remove the barriers to commercial space.”
Spaceflight has launched more than 100 satellites to date from a variety of launch vehicles including PSLV, Dnepr, Antares, Cygnus, Soyuz and others. The frequency of satellite launches, combined with Spaceflight’s cross-section of customers and variety of mission-applications, is a strong indicator of the growing capabilities of small satellites and the need for more timely and cost-effective access to space.
The companies have not yet announced a date for the Electron dedicated rideshare mission. Organizations interested in learning more about this and other launch options should contact [email protected].
http://www.spaceflight.com/spaceflight-purchases-electron-rocket-rocket-lab-frequent-affordable-rideshare-space/ (http://www.spaceflight.com/spaceflight-purchases-electron-rocket-rocket-lab-frequent-affordable-rideshare-space/)
-
FAA License for 3 test flights (found via Jeff Foust tweet)
Edit:
Rocket Lab USA is authorized to conduct three test launches of Electron launch vehicles from Rocket Lab Launch Complex (RLLC) in New Zealand, with each transporting an inert payload to low Earth orbit.
...
(c) On a launch azimuth of 174 degrees
There we go. Also now on the FAA website
https://www.faa.gov/data_research/commercial_space_data/licenses/ (https://www.faa.gov/data_research/commercial_space_data/licenses/)
FAA CST has control of Rocket Lab activities and the New Zealand launch site.
Hard to argue anymore that this is not a US launcher.
Ugh. U.S. paperwork didn't build this rocket. Kiwi's did!
- Ed Kyle
-
FAA License for 3 test flights (found via Jeff Foust tweet)
Edit:
Rocket Lab USA is authorized to conduct three test launches of Electron launch vehicles from Rocket Lab Launch Complex (RLLC) in New Zealand, with each transporting an inert payload to low Earth orbit.
...
(c) On a launch azimuth of 174 degrees
There we go. Also now on the FAA website
https://www.faa.gov/data_research/commercial_space_data/licenses/ (https://www.faa.gov/data_research/commercial_space_data/licenses/)
FAA CST has control of Rocket Lab activities and the New Zealand launch site.
Hard to argue anymore that this is not a US launcher.
Ugh. U.S. paperwork didn't build this rocket. Kiwi's did!
- Ed Kyle
With lot of US funding.
-
Ugh. U.S. paperwork didn't build this rocket. Kiwi's did!
- Ed Kyle
With lot of US funding.
Yeah, well, that's okay.. There is a lot of money in the US and a lot of US-funded projects in NZ (James Cameron's hangout for one), but no matter how much money (and paperwork) they happen to pour in, it's still New Zealand - and still a Kiwi rocket, designed by Kiwis, built by Kiwis (mostly) and launched by Kiwis.
Fingers crossed.. 8)
EDIT: I should also add "ignored by Kiwis".. but maybe a handful will take notice if/when it's successful launch.
-
Rocket LabVerified account @RocketLabUSA 3m3 minutes ago
Mission Control (MCC) is the technological hive of Rocket Lab where more than 25,000 data channels are processed during a launch #ItsaTest
https://twitter.com/RocketLabUSA/status/865130082356146176 (https://twitter.com/RocketLabUSA/status/865130082356146176)
-
FYI, the 1st flight now has a dedicated thread: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42966.0 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42966.0)
-
Rocket LabVerified account @RocketLabUSA 3m3 minutes ago
Mission Control (MCC) is the technological hive of Rocket Lab where more than 25,000 data channels are processed during a launch #ItsaTest
https://twitter.com/RocketLabUSA/status/865130082356146176 (https://twitter.com/RocketLabUSA/status/865130082356146176)
To add some context, Rocketlab MCC is directly adjacent their HQ in Airpark Drive, Mangere, NZ.
This pic Looks like Just Another Control Room (JACR) and contains all the standard components:
1. The room is all dark... lots of blues and blacks.
2. View of the back of >1 person's head staring intently at the screen in front.
3. The foreground intentionally or unitentionally fuzzed out so no proprietary info is given away.
4. Big screen on the wall in the background, often showing the same information as one of the screens in the foreground.
...but I do find them interesting, nonetheless. 8)
Some points I note about this one:
1. Unusually, the wall-screen is in sharp focus and actually shows telemetry and not just someone's Outlook inbox.
2. Data points for temps are all flat-lined at 2047.75degC (really? ???), others show 20.0degC there are a couple of 515's and few zeroes and what looks to be a tank pressure of 100.17kPa
My conclusion is they're running telemetry tests.. but the presence of more than one head in the pic means it could also simply be staged for public consumption.
-
I love how this is a "US" launch...
...founders are NZ. Factory is in NZ. Launchsite is in NZ.
-
I love how this is a "US" launch...
...founders are NZ. Factory is in NZ. Launchsite is in NZ.
Ugh. U.S. paperwork didn't build this rocket. Kiwi's did!
- Ed Kyle
With lot of US funding.
Yeah, well, that's okay.. There is a lot of money in the US and a lot of US-funded projects in NZ (James Cameron's hangout for one), but no matter how much money (and paperwork) they happen to pour in, it's still New Zealand - and still a Kiwi rocket, designed by Kiwis, built by Kiwis (mostly) and launched by Kiwis.
Fingers crossed.. 8)
EDIT: I should also add "ignored by Kiwis".. but maybe a handful will take notice if/when it's successful launch.
Yeah but what about all these new propulsion jobs opening up at RL's new factory in California? Does this mean that RL is moving their entire propulsion segment to the U.S.? Or are they merely establishing another propulsion group based in the U.S. to prepare for RL launches from Cape Canaveral/Alaska, while maintaining the NZ propulsion group for NZ based launches?
-
Yeah but what about all these new propulsion jobs opening up at RL's new factory in California? Does this mean that RL is moving their entire propulsion segment to the U.S.? Or are they merely establishing another propulsion group based in the U.S. to prepare for RL launches from Cape Canaveral/Alaska, while maintaining the NZ propulsion group for NZ based launches?
They are very obviously at the early end of establishing an engineering team in US. Maybe 5 people so far, some ex-SpaceX.
-
I love how this is a "US" launch...
...founders are NZ. Factory is in NZ. Launchsite is in NZ.
Peter Beck made that choice when he re-domiciled the company to get US money, and the NZ government backed him up with the TSA.
Plus, from what I hear, a lot of NASA and Lockheed Martin specialized help went into the vehicle.
-
Rocket LabVerified account @RocketLabUSA 3m3 minutes ago
Mission Control (MCC) is the technological hive of Rocket Lab where more than 25,000 data channels are processed during a launch #ItsaTest
https://twitter.com/RocketLabUSA/status/865130082356146176 (https://twitter.com/RocketLabUSA/status/865130082356146176)
To add some context, Rocketlab MCC is directly adjacent their HQ in Airpark Drive, Mangere, NZ.
This pic Looks like Just Another Control Room (JACR) and contains all the standard components:
1. The room is all dark... lots of blues and blacks.
2. View of the back of >1 person's head staring intently at the screen in front.
3. The foreground intentionally or unitentionally fuzzed out so no proprietary info is given away.
4. Big screen on the wall in the background, often showing the same information as one of the screens in the foreground.
...but I do find them interesting, nonetheless. 8)
Some points I note about this one:
1. Unusually, the wall-screen is in sharp focus and actually shows telemetry and not just someone's Outlook inbox.
2. Data points for temps are all flat-lined at 2047.75degC (really? ???), others show 20.0degC there are a couple of 515's and few zeroes and what looks to be a tank pressure of 100.17kPa
My conclusion is they're running telemetry tests.. but the presence of more than one head in the pic means it could also simply be staged for public consumption.
Also the pic is from 2016 - upper right hand corner....
-
All you good folks who are argu-- I mean discussing whether Rocketlab is a US or NZ entity are missing this glaring bit of information:
They tweet as: @RocketLabUSA
On Twitter they describe themselves as from: USA and New Zealand
And their website is: https://www.rocketlabusa.com/
On which is an FAQ answer which says:
Where is Rocket Lab based?
Rocket Lab is an American company with headquarters in Los Angeles and a wholly-owned New Zealand subsidiary.
So I think we can take it as settled. By Rocketlab themselves.
-
All you good folks who are argu-- I mean discussing whether Rocketlab is a US or NZ entity are missing one glaring bit of information:
They tweet as: @RocketLabUSA
On Twitter they describe themselves as from: USA and New Zealand
And their website is: https://www.rocketlabusa.com/
On which is an FAQ answer which says:
Where is Rocket Lab based?
Rocket Lab is an American company with headquarters in Los Angeles and a wholly-owned New Zealand subsidiary.
So I think we can take it as settled. By Rocketlab themselves.
In that case, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democracy and a republic. It is settled by Kim Jong Un himself. They want U.S. government business so they have a U.S. PO box. Nothing more.
edit: It seems that Google Street view has a image from June 2011 with a for lease sign that lists their HQ as 28,230 sq. ft before the Rocketlab logo went up. A bit bigger than most P.O. boxes, but not sure if they also have other tenants/sub-leasing as well.
edit 2: Looking at similar properties in Huntington beach, we get rates of about $1/SF/month which means rent on the property might be $340,000/year. On the other hand, their NASA contract is worth $6.9 million. So, probably worth it and then some.
-
In that case, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democracy and a republic. It is settled by Kim Jong Un himself. They want U.S. government business so they have a U.S. PO box. Nothing more.
No. What they wanted was about $120m in US venture capital investment, which is why they need to be a US Inc.
The NASA VCLS contract is a shiny bauble.
-
An article in the New Zealand Herald has a few interesting tidbits around how Rocket Lab will be dealing with weather forecasts and deciding whether to launch:
If we get a favourable met report the day before, we'll prepare to launch."
That means the green-light decision could be made today, as MetService staff work with Beck's crew to try and figure out the conditions - an extremely complex equation that involves radar and weather balloons to measure wind velocities and air pressures at both ground and high level.
"Things are looking much more settled for Sunday and the first part of next week, it's looking pretty good in that sense," John Law of MetService said.
"The winds should be pretty light particularly Sunday, Monday and towards Tuesday as well. It's a little more changeable in the second half of that week."
There's also some talk about how the locals are experiencing the whole thing. Not a bad way to fill in 5 minutes while we wait for the launch :) http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11858421 (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11858421)
-
There are good bits in that article. They have instrumented the heck of of this vehicle, 20k 'sensors' which I'd guess is a total aggregate count of all interleaved and muxed telemetry channels, not an actual number of 'sensors'.
-
That article gives 0 as the number of times any nation's first rocket has reached orbit. If their criteria is "any rocket", which includes suborbital rockets, then New Zealand is off the list, since Atea-1 launched in 2009 did not reach orbit. If we look at first orbital attempt, which makes more sense, then countries where the first attempt reached orbit are
USSR/R-7/Sputnik 1/4 October 1957
France/Diamant-A/Asterix/26 November 1965
China/CZ-1/DFH 1/24 April 1970
Israel/Shavit/Ofeq 1/19 September1988
So that's four countries!
-
Here's an Aussie article on the launch. I guess the NZ minister thinks that North Korea and Iran are super powers!
""So far, it's only superpowers that have gone into space," said Simon Bridges, New Zealand's economic development minister.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-21/new-zealand-space-launch-has-nation-reaching-for-the-stars/8545126
-
I think it's just a matter of trying to maintain laser focus. Anyone in the team worrying about appearances instead of performing their job increases the likelihood of screwing up. Even if that's a tiny part of the team, just not doing it will take a part of the pressure off.
Oh come on! They will have video cameras pointed at the rocket recording the launch. Someone has to monitor this and that someone could easily live stream it. SpaceX did it with their first launches. If something goes wrong and you don't want to be embarrassed, just put in a delay and then punch the button when it goes kablooey!
Don't want to clutter the launch thread, but my point was: not about the embarrassment of failure. Knowing the world is watching live shifts the psychology for the crew, builds extra pressure and stuff like this can end up mattering. Especially when it's all new for the team.
Besides, there are tiny extra factors like making sure your live feed is clear for ITAR, or any IP that you worry about, too. It's not free, someone somewhere needs to put in effort for this. They'll get to it, but for first time, it's totally understandable to avoid any of this IMO.
-
Another article with one interesting little snippet.
https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/05/20/small-satellite-launcher-set-for-first-orbital-test-flight/
"The initial flights of the Electron will be expendable, or single-use, but officials have not ruled out modifying the booster for multiple launches."
First real indication that the Electron could evolve into an RLV. With cubesats as its main payload, halving payload to recover booster is not big deal as long as cost per kg to orbit drops. They will still need a low cost expendable for heavier payloads.
If long term plans are a RLV then move to methane engines would make sense.
-
Another article with one interesting little snippet.
https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/05/20/small-satellite-launcher-set-for-first-orbital-test-flight/
"The initial flights of the Electron will be expendable, or single-use, but officials have not ruled out modifying the booster for multiple launches."
First real indication that the Electron could evolve into an RLV. With cubesats as its main payload, halving payload to recover booster is not big deal as long as cost per kg to orbit drops. They will still need a low cost expendable for heavier payloads.
If long term plans are a RLV then move to methane engines would make sense.
This is speculation out of left field, but if you look at how much extra room there is on the bottom of Electron, I don't think it'd be unreasonable for them to have an upgraded RLV with stretched tanks and larger engines, using the same thrust structure.
-
Just a friendly question/critique for Chris G... what is the utility of converting ISP to minutes and seconds?
Also noticed that kg/lb dual units are used for mass figures, but thrust is only in lbs.
Sorry, used to a tech writer! (Not a very good one, really.) Thanks!
-
Feature Article - by Chris Gebhardt:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/05/rocket-labs-electron-inaugural-flight-new-zealand/
The flow chart is quite bad, Rutherford have clearly two electric motors, one for each pump. And such thing as "electric engine" doesn't exist.
...
The company's own website calls it an "electric Rutherford engine."
Now you just try to trigger mah autism. No they don't: "Rutherford is an oxygen/kerosene pump fed engine specifically designed in-house for Electron using an entirely new propulsion cycle. Its unique high-performance electric propellant pumps reduce mass and replace hardware with software." [1]"Rutherford is the first oxygen/kerosene engine to use 3D printing for all primary components." [2]
Then whole chart's title should be "Electric engine", not some part name. Also my car has an electric fuel pump, but it's still not an electric car... Also pumps don't have common shaft (so no fear with leaking seals between oxygen/kerosene sides).
"An engine is a device that burns or otherwise consumes fuel, changing its chemical composition, whereas a motor is a device driven by electricity, air, or hydraulic pressure, which does not change the chemical composition of its energy source." [3]
1. https://www.rocketlabusa.com/electron/ "A New Propulsion Cycle"
2. https://www.rocketlabusa.com/electron/ "3D Printing"
3. "Engine", McGraw-Hill Concise Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, Third Edition, Sybil P. Parker, ed. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1994, p. 714.
;P
-
Just a friendly question/critique for Chris G... what is the utility of converting ISP to minutes and seconds?
Also noticed that kg/lb dual units are used for mass figures, but thrust is only in lbs.
Sorry, used to a tech writer! (Not a very good one, really.) Thanks!
For ISP, I put the seconds (which is normal) and the minute equivalent because people have complained in the past that they'd prefer the minute equivalent so they can have a "very clear sense of how long that is."
Thrust only in pounds is just something I missed going back to convert throughout. As I write, I list the figures as I find them. Sometimes the figures are metric, other times not (as in this calculation for lbs). I go back and put the other one in to cover all basis. I just missed the lbs conversion to kg for thrust here. I'll go back in now that launch has slipped and put in the conversion to kg.
-
Feature Article - by Chris Gebhardt:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/05/rocket-labs-electron-inaugural-flight-new-zealand/
The flow chart is quite bad, Rutherford have clearly two electric motors, one for each pump. And such thing as "electric engine" doesn't exist.
...
The company's own website calls it an "electric Rutherford engine."
Now you just try to trigger mah autism. No they don't: "Rutherford is an oxygen/kerosene pump fed engine specifically designed in-house for Electron using an entirely new propulsion cycle. Its unique high-performance electric propellant pumps reduce mass and replace hardware with software." [1]"Rutherford is the first oxygen/kerosene engine to use 3D printing for all primary components." [2]
Then whole chart's title should be "Electric engine", not some part name. Also my car has an electric fuel pump, but it's still not an electric car... Also pumps don't have common shaft (so no fear with leaking seals between oxygen/kerosene sides).
"An engine is a device that burns or otherwise consumes fuel, changing its chemical composition, whereas a motor is a device driven by electricity, air, or hydraulic pressure, which does not change the chemical composition of its energy source." [3]
1. https://www.rocketlabusa.com/electron/ "A New Propulsion Cycle"
2. https://www.rocketlabusa.com/electron/ "3D Printing"
3. "Engine", McGraw-Hill Concise Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, Third Edition, Sybil P. Parker, ed. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1994, p. 714.
;P
Yes, they do. Third bullet point.
https://www.rocketlabusa.com/latest/rocket-lab-reveals-first-battery-powered-rocket-for-commercial-launches-to-space/
-
They also call their electric pump to a turbopump (no turbines there), in Youtube. So what they'll know?
>;-P
-
First real indication that the Electron could evolve into an RLV. With cubesats as its main payload, halving payload to recover booster is not big deal as long as cost per kg to orbit drops. They will still need a low cost expendable for heavier payloads.
If long term plans are a RLV then move to methane engines would make sense.
This is speculation out of left field, but if you look at how much extra room there is on the bottom of Electron, I don't think it'd be unreasonable for them to have an upgraded RLV with stretched tanks and larger engines, using the same thrust structure.
The problem is not fuel, it's battery power. The batteries run out of power to drive the fuel pumps. Turbopumps don't have that issue, so bigger tanks solve the problem. But for Electron you would need bigger tanks and a bigger battery pack.
Just based on looking at their payload user guide it's pretty obvious this vehicle has zero margin as it is.
-
Why did they go with electric engines? Does it have better performance than turbopumps for this class of vehicles, or is it because it is easier to develop?
-
Why did they go with electric engines? Does it have better performance than turbopumps for this class of vehicles, or is it because it is easier to develop?
The latter. Also likely has some control advantages.
-
Why did they go with electric engines? Does it have better performance than turbopumps for this class of vehicles, or is it because it is easier to develop?
The latter. Also likely has some control advantages.
We actually don't know about performance, as this is a fairly small engine. Turbines have their scaling laws, and cryocooled electric motors may deliver fairly interesting results here.
-
Why did they go with electric engines? Does it have better performance than turbopumps for this class of vehicles, or is it because it is easier to develop?
I think it looks easier to develop, but it has limitations as well e.g. power density, added mass.
Notice they focus on the efficiency of the motors but not on the power density of the batteries? That's because they are massively disadvantaged by that compared to an old school turbopump, so the e-pumps have to be near 100% efficient to make the entire solution work even close to what a TPA would offer.
As for margin just overlay a couple of orbital insertion performance charts for similar vehicles and their lack of margin is blindingly obvious.
-
Why did they go with electric engines? Does it have better performance than turbopumps for this class of vehicles, or is it because it is easier to develop?
The latter. Also likely has some control advantages.
We actually don't know about performance, as this is a fairly small engine. Turbines have their scaling laws, and cryocooled electric motors may deliver fairly interesting results here.
We know enough to know that gas generator turbopumps are better, though electropumps can have sufficient performance. The fact you don't need starter cartridges and the usual starting complexity could mean an overall win on mass for a small rocket, but gas generators definitely have higher specific power.
-
They are trading extra weight of batteries and motors for easier development cycle. Engine is more efficient as all fuel is used for thrust, instead of some being burnt for pumping fuel. That extract fuel saving helps to off set extra weight of batteries. Every year or two vehicle reduces weight by changing to latest battery technology for very little R&D cost.
For RLV the batteries shouldn't change, they are sized for fuel capacity of LV.
-
First real indication that the Electron could evolve into an RLV. With cubesats as its main payload, halving payload to recover booster is not big deal as long as cost per kg to orbit drops. They will still need a low cost expendable for heavier payloads.
If long term plans are a RLV then move to methane engines would make sense.
This is speculation out of left field, but if you look at how much extra room there is on the bottom of Electron, I don't think it'd be unreasonable for them to have an upgraded RLV with stretched tanks and larger engines, using the same thrust structure.
The problem is not fuel, it's battery power. The batteries run out of power to drive the fuel pumps. Turbopumps don't have that issue, so bigger tanks solve the problem. But for Electron you would need bigger tanks and a bigger battery pack.
Just based on looking at their payload user guide it's pretty obvious this vehicle has zero margin as it is.
Where'd you get a PUG?
-
They are trading extra weight of batteries and motors for easier development cycle. Engine is more efficient as all fuel is used for thrust, instead of some being burnt for pumping fuel. That extract fuel saving helps to off set extra weight of batteries.
The weight of the batteries should still be many times higher than the amount of fuel spent by the gas generator in a comparable gg cycle engine, AND the full mass of the batteries is in the craft during full duration of the flight, unlike the fuel used by gas generator which is leaving the vehicle.
So, performance-wise, gas generator is much better. But they are not aiming for high performance, they are aiming for simplicity, low cost and maybe also reliability through that simplicity.
-
Where'd you get a PUG?
I requested one and they sent it.
-
Just a friendly question/critique for Chris G... what is the utility of converting ISP to minutes and seconds?
Also noticed that kg/lb dual units are used for mass figures, but thrust is only in lbs.
Sorry, used to a tech writer! (Not a very good one, really.) Thanks!
For ISP, I put the seconds (which is normal) and the minute equivalent because people have complained in the past that they'd prefer the minute equivalent so they can have a "very clear sense of how long that is."
Thrust only in pounds is just something I missed going back to convert throughout. As I write, I list the figures as I find them. Sometimes the figures are metric, other times not (as in this calculation for lbs). I go back and put the other one in to cover all basis. I just missed the lbs conversion to kg for thrust here. I'll go back in now that launch has slipped and put in the conversion to kg.
Specific impulse had no physically significant relation to time, despite having units of seconds. Listing it in minutes is entirely unnecessary (and anyone who wants to see it in minutes has no idea what it means). If you want a meaningful metric, convert specific impulse to exhaust velocity in m/s by multiplying by 9.81 m/s^2.
Thrust is not measured in lbs or kg. It should be listed in lbf and kN.
-
Specific impulse had no physically significant relation to time, despite having units of seconds.
Well, ISP tells how many seconds an engine can support a mass against gravity, using the same mass of fuel. So a bigger number is better in a way that is very relevant for rockets.
Listing it in minutes is entirely unnecessary (and anyone who wants to see it in minutes has no idea what it means).
I agree completely. Has anyone here *ever* seen ISP listed in minutes?? I never have...
If you want a meaningful metric, convert specific impulse to exhaust velocity in m/s by multiplying by 9.81 m/s^2.
The two are both equivalent since they only differ by a scaling factor. In terms of meaningfull-ness, "how many seconds can you support your own weight" might be more intuitive than velocities well beyond usual human experience.
Thrust is not measured in lbs or kg. It should be listed in lbf and kN.
Agreed.
-
Specific impulse had no physically significant relation to time, despite having units of seconds. Listing it in minutes is entirely unnecessary (and anyone who wants to see it in minutes has no idea what it means). If you want a meaningful metric, convert specific impulse to exhaust velocity in m/s by multiplying by 9.81 m/s^2.
Thrust is not measured in lbs or kg. It should be listed in lbf and kN.
I'm against measuring Isp in minutes, it's just weird. However, it's not quite correct to say it has no physical relationship to time.
You can consider it as the number of seconds that it will take to consume a given number of pounds of propellant while continuously delivering that same number of pounds of thrust.
That is, the upper stage Rutherford engine, which provides 5000lbf of thrust and 327 seconds of Isp, would consume 5000lbm of propellant after firing for 327 seconds of burn time.
-
Specific impulse had no physically significant relation to time, despite having units of seconds. Listing it in minutes is entirely unnecessary (and anyone who wants to see it in minutes has no idea what it means). If you want a meaningful metric, convert specific impulse to exhaust velocity in m/s by multiplying by 9.81 m/s^2.
Thrust is not measured in lbs or kg. It should be listed in lbf and kN.
I'm against measuring Isp in minutes, it's just weird. However, it's not quite correct to say it has no physical relationship to time.
You can consider it as the number of seconds that it will take to consume a given number of pounds of propellant while continuously delivering that same number of pounds of thrust.
That is, the upper stage Rutherford engine, which provides 5000lbf of thrust and 327 seconds of Isp, would consume 5000lbm of propellant after firing for 327 seconds of burn time.
I often heard it quoted as "how long a rocket with said engine could hover above Earth's surface" - given, of course, that the engine could throttle all the way down to just above 0% with no change in ISP. Same thing, just different explanations.
-
They've gained a write-up in The Australian this morning:
New Zealand may soon be launching commercial rockets into space more often than the US — if the plans of California-based company Rocket Lab work out
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/enterprising-kiwis-find-a-niche-in-space/news-story/b059864c558cb526ef351650c6440b58
-
Thrust only in pounds is just something I missed going back to convert throughout. As I write, I list the figures as I find them. Sometimes the figures are metric, other times not (as in this calculation for lbs). I go back and put the other one in to cover all basis. I just missed the lbs conversion to kg for thrust here. I'll go back in now that launch has slipped and put in the conversion to kg.
Ahhh, Noooo! Thrust in metric should be in Newtons (N) or kilo Newtons (kN).
Specific impulse had no physically significant relation to time, despite having units of seconds.
Yes it does. Its the time taken under 1 g of acceleration to reach the exhaust speed of the engine.
Well, ISP tells how many seconds an engine can support a mass against gravity, using the same mass of fuel. So a bigger number is better in a way that is very relevant for rockets.
I don't think that is correct. From the rocket equation
dV = g*Isp*ln(mi/mf).
In your case mi/mf = 2 which gives
dV = g*Isp*ln(2).
If acceleration is constant at 1 g then
dV = integral from 0 to T g dt = g*T
Equating the two implies T = Isp*ln(2) which is not correct. If you want T = Isp, then mi/mf = e = 2.718.... That is you need about 1.718 units of propellant to hold 1 unit of final mass for T = Isp seconds under 1 g of acceleration.
-
Ya know we could start a new thread.
mdot = thrust / (isp * g)
isp = thrust / g / mdot
As such, isp is: for an ideal rocket, how long can we maintain that mass-force?
The reason isp is popular in the US (whereas exhaust velocity is more popular in Europe/Russia) is because non-metric people prefer to talk in terms of mass-force.
-
I'm excited by this project. And virtually in my backyard, no less! Well... A six hour drive from my backyard ;) Though when it comes to N.Z. media coverage of it; there is a non-charming, naive and parochial attitude to Space industry and Space Exploration in Kiwi media. Some, like Duncan Garner on 'The A.M. Show' is reasonably upbeat and excited by it. But if you listen to Talkback Radio in this country - the producers seem to let on air more than the usual share of ''Oh; but isn't all a waste of money when there are people living in cardboard boxes in this country, and Earthquake damaged Cathedrals still to rebuild". They seem to be blissfully unaware of the existence of Commercial Space Ventures - regardless of large or small Government subsidies...
And I even heard one R-word (you know the one) pipe up with "I see that New Zealand is going to join the 'Fake Space club' like the Yanks and the Russkies with their model rockets and computer effects..."
There are people in my country who are very, very punchable w4nkers indeed... >:( :'(
-
I'm excited by this project. And virtually in my backyard, no less! Well... A four hour drive from my backyard ;) Though when it comes to N.Z. media coverage of it; there is a non-charming, naive and parochial attitude to Space industry and Space Exploration in Kiwi media. Some, like Duncan Garner on 'The A.M. Show' is reasonably upbeat and excited by it. But if you listen to Talkback Radio in this country - the producers seem to let on air more than the usual share of ''Oh; but isn't all a waste of money when there are people living in cardboard boxes in this country, and Earthquake damaged Cathedrals still to rebuild". They seem to be blissfully unaware of the existence of Commercial Space Ventures - regardless of large or small Government subsidies...
And I even heard one R-word (you know the one) pipe up with "I see that New Zealand is going to join the 'Fake Space club' like the Yanks and the Russkies with their model rockets and computer effects..."
There are people in my country who are very, very punchable w4nkers indeed... >:( :'(
Well.. look on the bright side. You'll be able to drive to a viewing platform of your selection, totally unmolested by crowds of anything other than sheep (maybe deer if you're really unlucky), sit peacefully in the sunshine beer in hand and (hopefully) watch a rocket lift-off from the top of the Mahia Peninsula.
Now that's something you can't do in the United States! ;D
-
The reason isp is popular in the US (whereas exhaust velocity is more popular in Europe/Russia) is because non-metric people prefer to talk in terms of mass-force.
When you can't convert between units easily, every industry ends up making its own weirdo units...
The weight of the batteries should still be many times higher than the amount of fuel spent by the gas generator in a comparable gg cycle engine, AND the full mass of the batteries is in the craft during full duration of the flight, unlike the fuel used by gas generator which is leaving the vehicle.
I think this is perhaps not framing the tradeoff in the most useful terms. You're right that the dry mass impact hurts performance compared to gas generator, but launchers in this class frequently end up using pressure fed (FireFly) or solid (Pegasus) and that's even worse. If gas generator was never an option due to the engineering and business realities, then electric pumped is an improvement over what would have otherwise been used, and it's a genuinely welcome addition to the pantheon of rocket cycles.
There's a bunch of other applications that have occurred to me where it would be potentially quite useful and outperform the existing options. For example, for lunar missions the baseline propulsion is pressure fed hypergols. NASA has considered pressure fed methalox. This would easily outperform both of those without the development costs of advanced cycles. Another application would be as a kick stage, which are frequently solids now, and solids on top of a Centaur is a travesty.
So this really seems to be to be top notch work by Rocket Lab that will be influential beyond this one launcher.
-
I'm excited by this project. And virtually in my backyard, no less! Well... A four hour drive from my backyard ;) Though when it comes to N.Z. media coverage of it; there is a non-charming, naive and parochial attitude to Space industry and Space Exploration in Kiwi media. Some, like Duncan Garner on 'The A.M. Show' is reasonably upbeat and excited by it. But if you listen to Talkback Radio in this country - the producers seem to let on air more than the usual share of ''Oh; but isn't all a waste of money when there are people living in cardboard boxes in this country, and Earthquake damaged Cathedrals still to rebuild". They seem to be blissfully unaware of the existence of Commercial Space Ventures - regardless of large or small Government subsidies...
And I even heard one R-word (you know the one) pipe up with "I see that New Zealand is going to join the 'Fake Space club' like the Yanks and the Russkies with their model rockets and computer effects..."
There are people in my country who are very, very punchable w4nkers indeed... >:( :'(
Well.. look on the bright side. You'll be able to drive to a viewing platform of your selection, totally unmolested by crowds of anything other than sheep (maybe deer if you're really unlucky), sit peacefully in the sunshine beer in hand and (hopefully) watch a rocket lift-off from the top of the Mahia Peninsula.
Now that's something you can't do in the United States! ;D
Actually, security is fairly tight and they're not letting anyone near - even the 'Space Dude' (me) who often pops up on NZ radio & TV to talk about such things...
-
There's a bunch of other applications that have occurred to me where it would be potentially quite useful and outperform the existing options. For example, for lunar missions the baseline propulsion is pressure fed hypergols. NASA has considered pressure fed methalox. This would easily outperform both of those without the development costs of advanced cycles. ..
There's been a discussion of this above, too. Integrated into a spacecraft with solar power, batteries can be recharged, and a relatively large battery bank could potentially serve other mission goals as well.
-
Well, ISP tells how many seconds an engine can support a mass against gravity, using the same mass of fuel. So a bigger number is better in a way that is very relevant for rockets.
I don't think that is correct. From the rocket equation [...]
Using the rocket equation makes sense if the mass being lifted is the fuel being consumed, and then ISP does not give the number of seconds, as you correctly point out.
ISP is more of a test-stand metric, where the fuel is not the mass being lifted. It's how long, using X kg of fuel, you can generate X kg-force (enough to support X kg). It's independent of X or the units of X, since they cancel. So if you put your engine on a test stand, and require it to generate 1 (tonne, kg, lb)-force of thrust, how long can it do this using 1 (tonne, kg, or lb) of fuel.
-
ISP is more of a test-stand metric, where the fuel is not the mass being lifted. It's how long, using X kg of fuel, you can generate X kg-force (enough to support X kg). It's independent of X or the units of X, since they cancel. So if you put your engine on a test stand, and require it to generate 1 (tonne, kg, lb)-force of thrust, how long can it do this using 1 (tonne, kg, or lb) of fuel.
... and importantly for a test stand, you can easily measure mass-force and time, therefore deriving ISP.
-
I think this is perhaps not framing the tradeoff in the most useful terms. You're right that the dry mass impact hurts performance compared to gas generator, but launchers in this class frequently end up using pressure fed (FireFly) or solid (Pegasus) and that's even worse. If gas generator was never an option due to the engineering and business realities, then electric pumped is an improvement over what would have otherwise been used, and it's a genuinely welcome addition to the pantheon of rocket cycles.
Indeed. Really small gas generators is a hard problem that was identified as one of those "minimum gauge" problems back when people first started looking at small boosters. The typical solution was to go with pressure fed or solids.
-
I'm excited by this project. And virtually in my backyard, no less! Well... A four hour drive from my backyard ;)
Any chance of driving there and live streaming from your mobile phone? The closest point seems to be the road that goes down along the beach. That is 11.3 km away, which should be close enough to get a good view.
-
Just checked the 3G mobile phone map at link below. The east side of Mahia peninsula has very poor coverage. The west side is much better, so you're better off driving down the west side.
https://www.vodafone.co.nz/network/coverage/
Distance is a little further at 11.5 km. You might be able to go further South, but mobile phone coverage might be limited. The land is also flatter compared to the east site, so you should be able to see it rise over land a little earlier.
-
No, I'm afraid not :( I've just returned from a cross country trip to the other side of the Island yesterday. I've crunched the numbers and it's a 5 or 6 hour drive from here in Auckland. If I left at midnight, I'd make it there by dawn and liftoff is tentatively set for 9:00am. However, since it's a less than 40,000lb thrust rocket, viewing it from more than 10kms away would be a bit uninspiring. Even a Shuttle launch from that distance wouldn't look very flash...
I tried awhile ago to get Press Credentials for this launch, but to no avail. At the time, there was no solidly announced launch window to make plans to attend. And security is very tight for this - some might even call it anal... :(
EDIT: When the launch goes ahead, I'll try to put in a link to footage of it on this page.
-
...Also, when I buy my new Galaxy phone in a couple of weeks, I'll install a map app then! I'm still using a Galaxy 1.
-
If I left at midnight, I'd make it there by dawn and liftoff is tentatively set for 9:00am.
That was the old time. The NOTAMs indicate that the window opens at 12:30 pm local! Getting up at 6:30 am gets you there one hour before launch.
However, since it's a less than 40,000lb thrust rocket, viewing it from more than 10kms away would be a bit uninspiring.
You'll be seeing history! That has to be inspiring.
-
You're getting better news of it than I can see in the mainstream media here!! Are you linked to Rocketlab's page or something?! The last launch time I heard was 9:00am! :(
-
You're getting better news of it than I can see in the mainstream media here!! Are you linked to Rocketlab's page or something?! The last launch time I heard was 9:00am! :(
Mainstream media don't have a clue. Check out the NOTAMs for yourself. Go to
https://pilotweb.nas.faa.gov/PilotWeb/
Under NOTAM retrieval, select:
Report Format Type: ICAO
Locations: NZZO
View Notams
There are two NOTAMS B2339/17 and B2338/17. They list the times as
23 MAY 00:30 2017 UNTIL 23 MAY 05:30 2017
The time 00:30 is UTC, which is 12:30 pm your time.
-
The Galaxy Note 5 can directly livestream to Youtube. Can you beg, borrow or steal one for tomorrow? :-)
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/samsung-galaxy-youtube-stream-how-to,news-21673.html
The other way to live stream is to hookup your camera or phone to a computer which is plugged into a 3G wireless internet USB stick.
-
The Galaxy Note 5 can directly livestream to Youtube. Can you beg, borrow or steal one for tomorrow? :-)
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/samsung-galaxy-youtube-stream-how-to,news-21673.html
The other way to live stream is to hookup your camera or phone to a computer which is plugged into a 3G wireless internet USB stick.
**Thanks for the weblinks, Steve - I knew nothing about them, being the relatively uninformed creature that I am. And No, I'm afraid I can't go near the place tomorrow or anyday soon - it's not just a simple drive down the road. The unpredictability of closed roads in central, rural N.Z. could make my trip a waste of time - it's snow and ice season there. And I also don't feel like paying illegal 'tolls' to some of the local yokels there. Yes; that is a thing here...
-
I read something about sight seeing being restricted to tour operators, once commercial launches start. Would be case off closing roads and paying for bus ride to viewing site.
Given narrow roads and next to no roadside parking it does make sense. Also injects s bit revenue into local community. I don't mind if the price is reasonable <$25.
-
Thrust in metric should be in Newtons (N) or kilo Newtons (kN).
To be pedantic, I'll point out that the organisation which defines SI units would prefer "newton" or "kilonewton", without capitals or embedded spaces:
Unit names are normally printed in roman (upright) type, and they are treated like ordinary nouns. In English, the names of units start with a lower-case letter (even when the symbol for the unit begins with a capital letter), except at the beginning of a sentence or in capitalized material such as a title....
When the name of a unit is combined with the name of a multiple or sub-multiple prefix, no space or hyphen is used between the prefix name and the unit name. The combination of prefix name plus unit name is a single word.
See the 39th page of the first attached PDF.
-
The Galaxy Note 5 can directly livestream to Youtube. Can you beg, borrow or steal one for tomorrow? :-)
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/samsung-galaxy-youtube-stream-how-to,news-21673.html
The other way to live stream is to hookup your camera or phone to a computer which is plugged into a 3G wireless internet USB stick.
Contact NZ TV 1 news, they can't miss this even from a distance: @1NewsNZ
-
I hate to be negative - but unless they've already got something planned and 'up their sleeves', I've heard of no live broadcast of the first launch attempt.
When STS-1 launched on April 12th, 1981: pretty much every country in the civilized world had live coverage of the launch - except New Zealand. When there was the first return to flight after Shuttle 'Challenger' - no mainstream coverage here, despite my old organisations' attempts to get them to notice. And the John Glenn Shuttle mission?! Nada!! When there was STS-114; the return to flight after 'Columbia' - no mainstream coverage here. Although, I personally campaigned hard to get live coverage of this launch. I was told it was going to happen - but at the last minute; they inexplicably changed their mind.
In March 1986 there was live coverage of the Giotto/Halley's Comet encounter... But that was 31 years ago. And now that N.Z. is about to launch their own space rocket? I am unaware of any publicity by TVNZ or 'Three' (TV3) that they intend to cover the launch. In fact - talkback radio today had some comment about 'what a waste of money while people are living in boxes under a bridge'...
I've combated this ignorance in my country for more than 30 years. You are more likely to get live coverage here of the relaunch of 'American Idol'... >:( :'(
-
Ya know we could start a new thread.
mdot = thrust / (isp * g)
isp = thrust / g / mdot
As such, isp is: for an ideal rocket, how long can we maintain that mass-force?
The reason isp is popular in the US (whereas exhaust velocity is more popular in Europe/Russia) is because non-metric people prefer to talk in terms of mass-force.
No such quantity as mass-force exists, but I think I get your drift. The standard measure of the amount of oomph that a propellant provides is the impulse delivered, i.e., the product of thrust and time. If, as is common in English-language textbooks written in the 1960s or earlier, propellant quantity is expressed in terms of weight, then the natural figure of merit of for propellants is impulse divided by weight. Since both thrust and weight are forces, impulse over weight is expressed as a time. That's what we usually call specific impulse, though it would be more precise to call it weight-specific impulse (impulse per unit weight of propellant).
If we express propellant quantity in terms of mass, then the natural figure of merit is impulse divided by mass, which has units of velocity. We usually call that effective exhaust velocity, but it can also be thought of as mass-specific impulse.
Weight-specific impulse is, of course, the time that a given quantity of propellant can produce a thrust equal to its own Earth weight. Since thrust-to-weight ratios at stage ignition are typically nearish to unity and since, at stage ignition, the mass of a space vehicle is usually dominated by the stage's propellants, that time does provide a bit of insight into how long a stage should burn for optimal efficiency.
More often, however, effective exhaust velocity provides the greater insight: if the delta-V needed from a stage greatly exceeds its effective exhaust velocity, the rocket equation tells you you're really going to have to tighten your belt. If it were up to me, we'd do away with weight-specific impulse and use effective exhaust velocity.
EDIT: Deleted two fragmentary sentences accidentally attached at the end of the final paragraph.
-
I thought this overview of Electron was pretty good. Has great graphics of Electron and includes a Kerbal Electron simulation!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXGfK6keS2Q
-
There's a comment in this New Zealand article saying the launch is being privately livestreamed to their Auckland and US HQ.
https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/rocket-lab-counts-down-first-test-launch-ck-202970
-
There's a comment in this New Zealand article saying the launch is being privately livestreamed to their Auckland and US HQ.
https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/rocket-lab-counts-down-first-test-launch-ck-202970
I think you mean there's a comment on the article, by some random internet commenter. I'd take that with a dump truck of salt.
-
There's a comment in this New Zealand article saying the launch is being privately livestreamed to their Auckland and US HQ.
https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/rocket-lab-counts-down-first-test-launch-ck-202970
I can believe that.
It's not going to be livestreamed for the rest of it. Accept it and move on.
-
You can download the Payload Users Guide from this website.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-NvtQjqI6SeQ2J4Sk5tS3gxVWc/view
-
The Rocket Lab live news updates link has died.
https://www.rocketlabusa.com/latest/live-news-updates/
-
>:( :(
-
The Rocket Lab live news updates link has died.
https://www.rocketlabusa.com/latest/live-news-updates/
Well.. like everything RocketLab have done to date, "it's a test". :P ::) ;D
-
The Rocket Lab live news updates link has died.
https://www.rocketlabusa.com/latest/live-news-updates/
Try this.
https://www.rocketlabusa.com/latest/its-a-test-live-news-updates-2/
-
Rocket Lab now has an online store.
https://shop.rocketlabusa.com/
-
As of three hours ago, it appears that Rocket Lab is in the process of preparing for another attempt today.
Slick timelapse can be found here https://twitter.com/RocketLabUSA/status/867106745390292992 (https://twitter.com/RocketLabUSA/status/867106745390292992).
-
I've sent the following message to Rocket Lab asking to make their official Youtube livestream public. If you want to also see the launch live, please also send a message to Rocket Lab. It won't hurt to ask and who knows, we may get Rocket Lab to change their mind.
https://www.rocketlabusa.com/contact/
Dear Rocket Lab,
We understand that there is an official Youtube livestream of the first Electron launch at youtube.com/watch?v=CBEQWSqoeFc , but it is private only. Could you please make this livesteam public? Rocket Lab has said it won't be providing a live stream because of the variability of the launch time. As a keen space enthusiast we understand this and are quite happy to wait all day and all week for the launch to happen. We would like to experience this historic moment for New Zealand that is being followed all over the world. You guys are about to send a payload into space! Please let us share the experience.
Yours sincerely,
Steven S. Pietrobon, B.Eng., M.Eng., Ph.D.
-
They are trading extra weight of batteries and motors for easier development cycle. Engine is more efficient as all fuel is used for thrust, instead of some being burnt for pumping fuel. That extract fuel saving helps to off set extra weight of batteries. Every year or two vehicle reduces weight by changing to latest battery technology for very little R&D cost.
For RLV the batteries shouldn't change, they are sized for fuel capacity of LV.
Also optimized for manufacturing. Probably cheaper to build and assemble many electric motors then many turbines and valving systems.
-
I've sent the following message to Rocket Lab asking to make their official Youtube livestream public. If you want to also see the launch live, please also send a message to Rocket Lab. It won't hurt to ask and who knows, we may get Rocket Lab to change their mind.
https://www.rocketlabusa.com/contact/
Dear Rocket Lab,
We understand that there is an official Youtube livestream of the first Electron launch at youtube.com/watch?v=CBEQWSqoeFc , but it is private only. Could you please make this livesteam public? Rocket Lab has said it won't be providing a live stream because of the variability of the launch time. As a keen space enthusiast we understand this and are quite happy to wait all day and all week for the launch to happen. We would like to experience this historic moment for New Zealand that is being followed all over the world. You guys are about to send a payload into space! Please let us share the experience.
Yours sincerely,
Steven S. Pietrobon, B.Eng., M.Eng., Ph.D.
Doesn't hurt to ask. However, given that there are even people on this forum already questioning their choice of launch site and calling the triboelectricity problems incompetence in thinly veiled terms, the prospect of reaching out/exposing themselves to a much larger, far more visible and considerably less informed public is probably not quite appealing to them.
-
As a rather silly comment, I note that this rocket would easily fit on a F9 launch.
You'd need to pull off the fairing, and arrange an arm to stack the payload on top, unless you can split the payload into two panniers.
(other minor problems may exist).
-
As a rather silly comment, I note that this rocket would easily fit on a F9 launch.
You'd need to pull off the fairing, and arrange an arm to stack the payload on top, unless you can split the payload into two panniers.
I was thinking the Electron upper stage might make an interesting kick stage. The default American kick stage seems to be a Star 48 or similar, which is solid and hence suffers from <300 ISP and doesn't restart.
-
As a rather silly comment, I note that this rocket would easily fit on a F9 launch.
You'd need to pull off the fairing, and arrange an arm to stack the payload on top, unless you can split the payload into two panniers.
I was thinking the Electron upper stage might make an interesting kick stage. The default American kick stage seems to be a Star 48 or similar, which is solid and hence suffers from <300 ISP and doesn't restart.
Fueling a cryo kick stage inside a fairing seems like a pain. And the ISP not much different than hypergols.
-
Fueling a cryo kick stage inside a fairing seems like a pain.
Atlas V 5xx and Delta IV have the cryo upper stage inside the fairing.
And the ISP not much different than hypergols.
ISP not that much different than Russian staged combustion hypergols. Beats pressure fed hypergols.
-
Fueling a cryo kick stage inside a fairing seems like a pain.
Atlas V 5xx and Delta IV have the cryo upper stage inside the fairing.
And the ISP not much different than hypergols.
ISP not that much different than Russian staged combustion hypergols. Beats pressure fed hypergols.
Delta IV does not, only the 5 meter Atlas - and they aren't noted for easy handling. I'm not saying it's impossible, it's just a lot of effort compared to enclosing a hypergol or solid kick motor. You need to have a fairing and GSE designed specifically to support it.
AJ-10 gets 319 sec Isp. Not that far from the Ruthurford vac engine.
-
Rocketlab trying again today! Held at T-12 minutes yesterday due to weather.
https://twitter.com/RocketLabUSA
-
https://twitter.com/rocketlabusa/status/867466459600924679 (https://twitter.com/rocketlabusa/status/867466459600924679)
Rocket sheep!
-
Please let us share the experience.
No chance. They do not want to stream potential launch failure. "Variability of the launch time" is pretty obvious and transparent excuse.
-
Screen grabs from the launch animation. Had been saving these in case Rocket Lab tweeted these events during launch.
-
I'm betting they will make a first attempt in Q1. And the next one not more than 3 month after ..
MVR = minimum viable rocket
Off by around 2 months. Rocket does appear minimally viable.
I wish them well. My money is still on September.
Off by around 3 months. Hope they have more in store, soon.
-
Animation(a) 1.test(t) [KiwiSpace Foundation vid]
Meco
a: 2:35 t: 2:28
Stage Sep
a: 2:37 t: 2:36
Second Stage Ignition
a: 2:40 t: 2:44
Fairing Sep
a: 3:07 t: 3:08
Seco
a: 7:20 t: ~4.53 (or before)
-
Besides target payloads of cubesats and smallsats to LEO, Electron opens up a few other possibilities.
Moon Express lunar lander, which was probably last thing RL thought they would be launching when Electron was conceived.
With a earth escape stage (modified MX lander?) interplanetary missions using cubesats (12U- 24U) is another possibility.
Delivery of small payloads to ISS at short notice. This would require something like mini Cygnus or reentry vehicle if return of small payloads is required. A mini Cygnus with HIAD and mid air recovery might be one way to do it.
-
Delivery of small payloads to ISS at short notice. This would require something like mini Cygnus or reentry vehicle if return of small payloads is required.
Berthing mechanism alone will weigh close to 150 kg.
-
A cargo canister sent up on Electron might be small enough to bring in through the airlock.
Though I figure the guidance,sensors, and propulsion hardware needed for rendezvous with ISS probably would eat up a good chunk of the payload.
One solution might be to have a small tug stationed at ISS that flies out and retrieves the container.
-
A cargo canister sent up on Electron might be small enough to bring in through the airlock.
The Nanorack airlock may offer a simpler solution.
Once attached to Tranquility, the airlock would be pressurized to allow the hatch to be opened. The inside could then be configured by the crew for a variety of tasks. Once ready for deployment, the hatch would be closed and the airlock depressurized.
The robotic Canadarm2 would then grab the airlock and move it to a deployment angle away from the outpost. After satellite deployment, the arm would then return the airlock to its port on Tranquility.
Read more at http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/missions/iss/nanoracks-proposed-airlock-paves-way-for-more-commercial-iss/#p5X2vOkP07M5qHqd.99
The cargo vehicle would fly into airlock when deployed on end of Canadarm. This would lower risk to ISS, plus vehicle doesn't need airlock, just a bolted airtight plate. Once airlock is attached to ISS, crew has full access to cargo vehicle, could even be brought into ISS if small enough.
-
A cargo canister sent up on Electron might be small enough to bring in through the airlock.
Though I figure the guidance,sensors, and propulsion hardware needed for rendezvous with ISS probably would eat up a good chunk of the payload.
One solution might be to have a small tug stationed at ISS that flies out and retrieves the container.
Even worse: cost of such systems does not scale down.
-
A cargo canister sent up on Electron might be small enough to bring in through the airlock.
Though I figure the guidance,sensors, and propulsion hardware needed for rendezvous with ISS probably would eat up a good chunk of the payload.
One solution might be to have a small tug stationed at ISS that flies out and retrieves the container.
Altius has had ideas for how to enable an upper stage to rendezvous with a space facility with minimal hardware mods, but a) I'm pretty skeptical ISS would ever go for it, even it was demonstrated elsewhere first, and b) we've been so cashflow constrained as a company that we still haven't had the money to really flesh this idea out even in simulation, let alone air-bearing work, etc. We're working on relate items that we think have nearer-term revenue potential, but I wouldn't count out the idea of a small sat launch vehicle been able to directly rendezvous with a non-ISS future space facility.
~Jon
-
A cargo canister sent up on Electron might be small enough to bring in through the airlock.
Though I figure the guidance,sensors, and propulsion hardware needed for rendezvous with ISS probably would eat up a good chunk of the payload.
One solution might be to have a small tug stationed at ISS that flies out and retrieves the container.
Even worse: cost of such systems does not scale down.
If vehicle is disposable like Cygnus, removing expensive LIDAR systems inside ISS before it departs could be one option. I don't think needs it for departure especially if using Nanorack airlock. In case of reusable vehicle build cost is not as important.
Another idea is deploying a small tug (cubesat) on end of tether which grab the vehicle at a distance of 100-500m, then real it in slowly. Both tug and vehicle can provide braking thrust under direction from ISS.
There a few cubesat and smallsat inert propulsion systems that use gas and water. This would solve safety issues when bring it inside ISS. Deep space industries have steam thruster, low ISP but cheap and safe.
-
Delivery of small payloads to ISS at short notice. This would require something like mini Cygnus or reentry vehicle if return of small payloads is required. A mini Cygnus with HIAD and mid air recovery might be one way to do it.
Sounds like a solution in search of a problem to me.
The cost per kg of this sort of delivery would be horrible compared to the existing commercial delivery systems. It's already pretty expensive to deliver a kg of cargo using those systems. What could possibly justify an even more expensive delivery system just to get some deliveries in between the existing delivery runs? It's not worth it just to get some fresh fruit to the astronauts more often. In a medical emergency, they'd evacuate the crewmember.
-
There is demand from pharmaceutical companies for fast turn around on experiments. Which is why reusable vehicle is more important. Cost may not be that far off current vehicles, 100kg for $7.5-$10m is $75-100k/kg compared to Dragon $50k/kg.
When comes to science experiments it more about number per launch that $/kg, these are high value items compared to ISS supplies.
-
There is demand from pharmaceutical companies for fast turn around on experiments. Which is why reusable vehicle is more important. Cost may not be that far off current vehicles, 100kg for $7.5-$10m is $75-100k/kg compared to Dragon $50k/kg.
When comes to science experiments it more about number per launch that $/kg, these are high value items compared to ISS supplies.
Right, pharmaceutical companies. Proponents of all sorts of space-related ventures love to claim that pharmaceutical companies will pay for it. But where's the evidence? Where is an actual pharmaceutical company saying that they would pay the high dollar amounts it would actually cost to get something to ISS faster than Dragon or Cygnus would deliver it?
Also, your cost comparison is completely wrong. You're taking the total payload of an Electron launch vehicle divided by Electron launch cost and comparing it to the cost of pressurized cargo delivered by Dragon. That's nuts. Compare apples to apples. Compare the raw cargo to orbit cost of Electron to the raw cost of cargo to orbit of Falcon 9. That's the only fair comparison. Yes, there's a huge mark-up from raw cargo to orbit with Falcon 9 to pressurized cargo delivered to ISS. Guess what? The mark up on a much smaller-scale delivery of cargo to ISS from Electron will be even more. Larger scale means lower costs per kg. Even in the very best-case scenario, Electron couldn't deliver cargo inside the ISS for less than 10 times the cost per kg of sending the cargo on Dragon.
-
Rocket Lab is hiring!
"Looking to make history? Rocket Lab is hiring in Auckland, Los Angeles and Mahia!"
https://twitter.com/RocketLabUSA
Positions are
Avionics Manufacturing Technician, NZ
Communications Advisor, NZ
Communications Assistant, NZ
Structural Analyst, NZ
Test Technician, LA
Software Intern Opportunity, NZ
Electromechanical Technician, LA
Launch Range Technician, NZ
Propulsion Assembly Technician, LA
Propulsion Precision Cleaner, LA
Propulsion QA Technician, LA
General Applicants, NZ
Vehicle Design Engineer, NZ
RF/Communications Engineer, NZ
Composite Apprentice, NZ
Composite Builder, NZ
https://www.rocketlabusa.com/careers/positions/
-
There is demand from pharmaceutical companies for fast turn around on experiments. Which is why reusable vehicle is more important. Cost may not be that far off current vehicles, 100kg for $7.5-$10m is $75-100k/kg compared to Dragon $50k/kg.
What demand? Links! Quotes! Anything!
Pharmaceutical companies, if they wanted to, have enough money to fund several SpaceX-scale companies.
-
There is demand from pharmaceutical companies for fast turn around on experiments. Which is why reusable vehicle is more important. Cost may not be that far off current vehicles, 100kg for $7.5-$10m is $75-100k/kg compared to Dragon $50k/kg.
What demand? Links! Quotes! Anything!
Pharmaceutical companies, if they wanted to, have enough money to fund several SpaceX-scale companies.
From a conference panel about commercial space, it was NASA ISS payload person. Could remember which conference or video.
-
There is demand from pharmaceutical companies for fast turn around on experiments. Which is why reusable vehicle is more important. Cost may not be that far off current vehicles, 100kg for $7.5-$10m is $75-100k/kg compared to Dragon $50k/kg.
What demand? Links! Quotes! Anything!
Pharmaceutical companies, if they wanted to, have enough money to fund several SpaceX-scale companies.
From a conference panel about commercial space, it was NASA ISS payload person. Could remember which conference or video.
So it was wishful thinking, basically.
Look, protein crystals in micro-gravity is in the same realm as Helium-3 mining on the Moon. There is no demand for it. Space tourism has much more demand.
-
Electron launch animation:
https://youtu.be/0nfiXdBS2Do (https://youtu.be/0nfiXdBS2Do)
-
This is so impressive stuff 😘👍
Sendt fra min F8331 med Tapatalk
-
"Could remember which conference or video."
I think you'll find that's 'can't remember'. Unfortunately, a half-remembered glimpse of a presentation by some unknown person doesn't help us here and shouldn't really be offered as evidence. People have been talking about the amazing potential of space manufacturing of pharmaceuticals for decades, but there isn't much evidence that there is really any demand at all. Most likely, the things some people thought could only be done in space have since been done by cheaper and more convenient ground-based methods.
-
Once-flagging Alaska space business shows signs of liftoff (http://www.wrcbtv.com/story/35562614/once-flagging-alaska-space-business-shows-signs-of-liftoff)
Today, Alaska Aerospace has rebuilt its launch site and is again showing signs of liftoff. It is no longer confined to Alaska or government contracts, recently winning, for example, a deal with Rocket Lab to track the company's rockets and monitor its onboard systems in New Zealand.
-
Electron launch animation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nfiXdBS2Do (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nfiXdBS2Do)
That seems to show the rocket spinning before and after MECO. Is that just artistic license or deliberate? The black surface will be absorbing more sunlight, which I think is why most cryo-fueled rockets are painted white. I thought maybe they need to rotate to keep the temperature more even inside.
-
Is the LOX tank(s) really made fully carbon fiber composites, or it's it a big COPV?
Helium bottles are not inside LOX-tank :P
-
COPVs have 2000 psi pressure in them. These are likely around 50 psi. Being electrically pumped, the tank pressure might even be of little importance. The epoxy is lox tolerant.
Pity about the spin. Spin is only for small rockets that cannot steer and just do parabolic ballistic flight profile. Steering is needed for that essential gravity turn to a given orbital target.
-
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.
Exactly, this and the probable inability to organise say ten fellow small sat customers on a single biggish rocket means that RL and anyone who can come in the next two years is on to a bonanza.
Rocket Lab look to be easily competitive with any and all competitors as they print most of the engines and substitute two electric motors, batteries for all the complex plumbing, valves, high rotation seals (with serious engineering failure consequences), and five per cent propellent. No need for a dedicated large Carrier plane, for some more cheap prop.
Rocket Lab might be about to own this industry, hence a likely complete move to USA, sorry Mahia.
-
That seems to show the rocket spinning before and after MECO.
No spin in this animation which proves the spin was a gremlin.
-
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.
Exactly, this and the probable inability to organise say ten fellow small sat customers on a single biggish rocket means that RL and anyone who can come in the next two years is on to a bonanza.
This market so far is all hype and no substance, so I'm not sure that the smallsat market is anywhere near the size that many anticipate. A bonanza remains to be seen, but hopefully you are right.
-
... and they'll probably just ride that hype to a bigger launcher.
-
"Could remember which conference or video."
I think you'll find that's 'can't remember'. Unfortunately, a half-remembered glimpse of a presentation by some unknown person doesn't help us here and shouldn't really be offered as evidence. People have been talking about the amazing potential of space manufacturing of pharmaceuticals for decades, but there isn't much evidence that there is really any demand at all. Most likely, the things some people thought could only be done in space have since been done by cheaper and more convenient ground-based methods.
As only a fan, I don't often have much useful to add, but I have spent years in research producing and purifying biomolecules, and I find the persistence of this particular zombie factoid (something that keeps rising from the dead despite being repeatedly killed by contrary evidence) quite striking. After decades of hyped claims, there are exactly zero important biomolecules that can only be made (or can best be made, taking cost into account) in space. Twenty years ago, when I was making viral envelope proteins to crystallize for x-ray diffraction, enthusiasts were claiming that zero-G conditions were going to revolutionize the field. Even back then, it was very clear that space activities would have to become several orders of magnitude cheaper before they could beat continued optimization of conventional methods. That day may come, but we are still probably another twenty years away at least. I think it hurts the credibility of efforts to promote space activities to keep repeating claims not supported by evidence.
-
Rocketlab is in a very strong position as far as the smaller space startups go tbh. They have experience with manufacturing lightweight composite tanks, which gives them a big advantage for RLV's down the line. Also, even if their next engine has a more complicated cycle, electric engines could still be useful for the startup sequence or to drive low-pressure pumps.
The falcon 1 class market that they are currently about to serve is small, but should still be large enough to get enough launches on the manifest to gain operations experience.
-
The electric propellent pumps have just been demonstrated to work on the first stage which is the biggy test here. The idea of them being under powered implies deception at a base level. Yes we don't know the meco velocity so we don't have final proof.
Perhaps vector should go all out and put them on their pressure fed engines. The Lowish isp of
the polypropene recipe could benefit from batteries on board.
-
The electric propellent pumps have just been demonstrated to work on the first stage which is the biggy test here. The idea of them being under powered implies deception at a base level. Yes we don't know the meco velocity so we don't have final proof.
Perhaps vector should go all out and put them on their pressure fed engines. The Lowish isp of
the polypropene recipe could benefit from batteries on board.
So are you arguing that everyone should start sticking batteries on their vehicles because Rocketlab achieved suborbital flight?
-
..So are you arguing that everyone should start sticking batteries on their vehicles because Rocketlab achieved suborbital flight?
Technically, all launch vehicles have batteries anyway. This is just the next step in evolution, IVF IVB , aka integrated vehicle batteries.
-
The electric propellent pumps have just been demonstrated to work on the first stage which is the biggy test here. The idea of them being under powered implies deception at a base level. Yes we don't know the meco velocity so we don't have final proof.
Perhaps vector should go all out and put them on their pressure fed engines. The Lowish isp of
the polypropene recipe could benefit from batteries on board.
So are you arguing that everyone should start sticking batteries on their vehicles because Rocketlab achieved suborbital flight?
Yes most definitely. Considering Li ion batteries are 300 times less energy dense than kerosene and yet gas generators use five percent of propellent for those pesky turbopumps (you know all that junk that goes onto a basic plumbing combustion chamber). Seems most still don't believe it's possible, yet a orbiting 150kg mass will convince them all.
What is interesting to me is how much they can scale this up. Say only three times and you could have a one tonne Leo launcher for the same price as this.
Beck has shown the way, when he achieves orbit soon. This is a revolution for all those who want to make simple rocket engines.
-
orbiting 150kg mass will convince them all.
... could probably do 250 kg to a low elliptical orbit. Which is probably 1/5th of a modern Mercury.
-
What is interesting to me is how much they can scale this up.
It should be technically possible to scale it to any size. From a practical standpoint however, I don't think electric pumps scale up very well, especially when compared to other closed cycle engines. For example, (depending on what installed energy density you assume) the battery pack mass for a full duration Centaur burn is on the order of 1 tonne. Electric pumps are theoretically simple, so I guess in the end it depends on how you trade simplicity vs performance.
-
Rocketlab is in a very strong position as far as the smaller space startups go tbh. They have experience with manufacturing lightweight composite tanks, which gives them a big advantage for RLV's down the line.
LauncherOne is also using lightweight composite tanks, so I don't know if this is really a differentiator.
~Jon
-
What is interesting to me is how much they can scale this up.
It should be technically possible to scale it to any size. From a practical standpoint however, I don't think electric pumps scale up very well, especially when compared to other closed cycle engines. For example, (depending on what installed energy density you assume) the battery pack mass for a full duration Centaur burn is on the order of 1 tonne. Electric pumps are theoretically simple, so I guess in the end it depends on how you trade simplicity vs performance.
While battery may weigh 1t, weight of fuel required to drive a RL10 turbopump for 8 minutes is not insignificant.
-
What is interesting to me is how much they can scale this up.
It should be technically possible to scale it to any size. From a practical standpoint however, I don't think electric pumps scale up very well, especially when compared to other closed cycle engines. For example, (depending on what installed energy density you assume) the battery pack mass for a full duration Centaur burn is on the order of 1 tonne. Electric pumps are theoretically simple, so I guess in the end it depends on how you trade simplicity vs performance.
While battery may weigh 1t, weight of fuel required to drive a RL10 turbopump for 8 minutes is not insignificant.
True, but that weight is gone by the end of the burn, so if the fuel mass needed over those 8 minutes for a turbopump would be the same as the battery mass needed for an electric pumo, the turbopump would still be preferable in terms of delta-V.
-
What is interesting to me is how much they can scale this up.
It should be technically possible to scale it to any size. From a practical standpoint however, I don't think electric pumps scale up very well, especially when compared to other closed cycle engines. For example, (depending on what installed energy density you assume) the battery pack mass for a full duration Centaur burn is on the order of 1 tonne. Electric pumps are theoretically simple, so I guess in the end it depends on how you trade simplicity vs performance.
While battery may weigh 1t, weight of fuel required to drive a RL10 turbopump for 8 minutes is not insignificant.
RL-10 is a closed expander cycle: the fuel is heated by the nozzle, used to drive the turbine, then sent to the main combustion chamber. None of it is dumped as in a gas generator.
I don't think batteries can beat an expander cycle on mass. But they definitely scale better and are cheaper.
-
Jeff Foust @jeff_foust 13m13 minutes ago
Garrett Skrobot, NASA: Cubesat Launch Initiative has launched 49 satellites, 49 more manifested; 54 un-assigned.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/874971169170083841 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/874971169170083841)
Jeff Foust @jeff_foust 12m12 minutes ago
Skrobot’s schedule shown here includes a Rocket Lab Electron launch NET Nov 2017, and a Virgin Orbit LauncherOne flight NET Dec 2017.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/874971400100089857 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/874971400100089857)
-
What is interesting to me is how much they can scale this up.
It should be technically possible to scale it to any size. From a practical standpoint however, I don't think electric pumps scale up very well, especially when compared to other closed cycle engines. For example, (depending on what installed energy density you assume) the battery pack mass for a full duration Centaur burn is on the order of 1 tonne. Electric pumps are theoretically simple, so I guess in the end it depends on how you trade simplicity vs performance.
While battery may weigh 1t, weight of fuel required to drive a RL10 turbopump for 8 minutes is not insignificant.
True, but that weight is gone by the end of the burn, so if the fuel mass needed over those 8 minutes for a turbopump would be the same as the battery mass needed for an electric pumo, the turbopump would still be preferable in terms of delta-V.
I seem to recall that the Electron upper stage drops batteries as they are exhausted? I don't remember where I heard this, but it should be theoretically possible.
-
Brad Schneider, Rocket Lab: we’ve raised $150M to date, spent less than $100M developing Electron.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/875051842966884352 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/875051842966884352)
Schneider doesn’t offer many details on recent first Electron launch, but notes second stage engine performed as planned in vacuum.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/875055109067165696 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/875055109067165696)
-
I seem to recall that the Electron upper stage drops batteries as they are exhausted? I don't remember where I heard this, but it should be theoretically possible.
The limitation is the battery discharge time. For the first stage which runs for 2.5 minutes, it is just within the technology. That means no batteries can be dropped off for the first stage. I don't know how long the second stage runs for, but should be at least 5 minutes. That means half the batteries could be dropped off during flight. I don't know if Rocket Lab does that though.
-
What is interesting to me is how much they can scale this up.
It should be technically possible to scale it to any size. From a practical standpoint however, I don't think electric pumps scale up very well, especially when compared to other closed cycle engines. For example, (depending on what installed energy density you assume) the battery pack mass for a full duration Centaur burn is on the order of 1 tonne. Electric pumps are theoretically simple, so I guess in the end it depends on how you trade simplicity vs performance.
Don't forget the mass of the electric motor versus the mass of the gas generator and of the turbopump itself. High torque electric motors can be quite heavy.
- Ed Kyle
-
With 3D printing a conventional turbopump can be built inhouse compared to buying expensive electric motors and batteries.
With RLV the motors and battery costs are probably not as important, especially if they are good for dozens of flights.
-
What is interesting to me is how much they can scale this up.
It should be technically possible to scale it to any size. From a practical standpoint however, I don't think electric pumps scale up very well, especially when compared to other closed cycle engines. For example, (depending on what installed energy density you assume) the battery pack mass for a full duration Centaur burn is on the order of 1 tonne. Electric pumps are theoretically simple, so I guess in the end it depends on how you trade simplicity vs performance.
Don't forget the mass of the electric motor versus the mass of the gas generator and of the turbopump itself. High torque electric motors can be quite heavy.
- Ed Kyle
About 5kW/Kg at relatively low rpm. High RPM motors can do better. Over >20kW/Kg in next few years likely.
-
...The epoxy is lox tolerant...
Good to know, tell that also to this thread's author.
...I seem to recall that the Electron upper stage drops batteries as they are exhausted? I don't remember where I heard this, but it should be theoretically possible.
Here are images of the battery packs(?).
Early modeling vs. 2S testing
-
What is interesting to me is how much they can scale this up.
It should be technically possible to scale it to any size. From a practical standpoint however, I don't think electric pumps scale up very well, especially when compared to other closed cycle engines. For example, (depending on what installed energy density you assume) the battery pack mass for a full duration Centaur burn is on the order of 1 tonne. Electric pumps are theoretically simple, so I guess in the end it depends on how you trade simplicity vs performance.
Don't forget the mass of the electric motor versus the mass of the gas generator and of the turbopump itself. High torque electric motors can be quite heavy.
- Ed Kyle
About 5kW/Kg at relatively low rpm. High RPM motors can do better. Over >20kW/Kg in next few years likely.
Apparently they operate at 40,000 rpm, and each is the size of a soda can (https://web.archive.org/web/20160304053054/http://aviationweek.com/space/rocket-lab-unveils-battery-powered-turbomachinery)
-
New article from Peter B. de Selding
Arianespace valuation, $500 million. Rocket Lab, $1 billion: New Space thinking (https://www.spaceintelreport.com/arianespace-valuation-500-million-rocket-lab-1-billion-new-space-thinking/)
-
Yes, a $1 billion valuation is clearly laughable at this point.
-
New article from Peter B. de Selding
Arianespace valuation, $500 million. Rocket Lab, $1 billion: New Space thinking (https://www.spaceintelreport.com/arianespace-valuation-500-million-rocket-lab-1-billion-new-space-thinking/)
Arianespace are stuffed in the reusable medium range launch market. They will incur losses and/or substantial subsidies from their national owner.
This VC evaluation is a vote of confidence in the innovation that a kiwi can make to soar above the clouds. It is not the size, rather the frequency. When the size of the rocket enables reuse it will happen.
The French are having trouble coming to terms with new space. They are getting whacked from both sides (small and medium sized). Soon we will have super heavy that will kill medium.
-
Also don't make the mistake of VC evaluation being anything more than VC promotion of their stock. Look at all the unicorns in a recent list. Many are zero now. Link later.
-
Yes, a $1 billion valuation is clearly laughable at this point.
That is 200 launches. Definitely VC talking up price for cash out.
Even if RL start flying frequently say 20 a year, they will need to invest most profits back into R&D to keep ahead competition.
-
New article from Peter B. de Selding
Arianespace valuation, $500 million. Rocket Lab, $1 billion: New Space thinking (https://www.spaceintelreport.com/arianespace-valuation-500-million-rocket-lab-1-billion-new-space-thinking/)
Arianespace are stuffed in the reusable medium range launch market. They will incur losses and/or substantial subsidies from their national owner.
Did I dispute the Arianespace valuation? No.
This VC evaluation is a vote of confidence in the innovation that a kiwi can make to soar above the clouds. It is not the size, rather the frequency. When the size of the rocket enables reuse it will happen.
That sounds more like a wishful thinking argument from you. The Rocketlab valuation is almost all hype at this point, built on a belief in a massive smallsat market that so far has failed to materialize.
The French are having trouble coming to terms with new space. They are getting whacked from both sides (small and medium sized). Soon we will have super heavy that will kill medium.
If super heavy will kill the medium market, what hope does small have against medium? Medium has been killing the smallsat market for a long time, I don't expect that to change significantly. Rocketlab may eke out a niche, but that is far from killing the medium market.
-
I don't know of any of the technology of RL that is wishful, it all works. Gremlins are not show stoppers.
-
I think the value proposition of RocketLab is that they may be the first to get to orbit with such a small investment (in the first round). In a post-SpaceX world that's not saying much, but it's better than pouring money down the drain, ala Rocketplane.
-
New article from Peter B. de Selding
Arianespace valuation, $500 million. Rocket Lab, $1 billion: New Space thinking (https://www.spaceintelreport.com/arianespace-valuation-500-million-rocket-lab-1-billion-new-space-thinking/)
This comparison is not apple to apple, Arianespace is just a front for ESA and contractors like Airbus, it doesn't design or manufacture the hardware. Rocket Lab is hardware designer + manufacturer + launch operator rolled into one, covers much more ground than Arianespace.
Forget to mention, Rocket Lab has their own private launch site. I assume Arianespace doesn't own Guiana Space Centre.
-
Yes, a $1 billion valuation is clearly laughable at this point.
Yes, these newspace investors are just being crazy again amirite.
Or, just maybe, CNES, being a government entity just got TOTALLY shafted by Airbus. I don't know.
-
I don't know of any of the technology of RL that is wishful, it all works. Gremlins are not show stoppers.
The technology is not wishful, it is the idea that they will have a massive success in capturing the world smallsat market (partially to being KIWI!) that is wishful thinking.
Yes, a $1 billion valuation is clearly laughable at this point.
Yes, these newspace investors are just being crazy again amirite.
Yep, because all investments always make sense and pay off, am I right? ::) No, investors know there is risk. The problem is when other people (i.e. us) see investments and assume a foolproof plan.
-
Yes, a $1 billion valuation is clearly laughable at this point.
Yes, these newspace investors are just being crazy again amirite.
Yep, because all investments always make sense and pay off, am I right? ::) No, investors know there is risk. The problem is when other people (i.e. us) see investments and assume a foolproof plan.
I thought that was my point. Rocketlab valuation is not laughable, or "new space thinking" as the article calls it. It is in line with market valuations of other companies with similar ambitions and prospects.
Arianespace valuation on the other hand is "not a standard valuation event" to quote the article. That's an understatement in my opinion. It paints a grim picture of the state and outlook of Arianespace.
-
The technology is not wishful, it is the idea that they will have a massive success in capturing the world smallsat market (partially to being KIWI!) that is wishful thinking.
Rocket Lab are about to have the whole market to themselves for a year or more, other than the rare rideshares and the non existent bulk rides. We will see when launcher one goes up. somebody tell me how the pressure fed propellent rocket works when you don't use a nitrogen tank farm (as in do you get sufficient isp for orbit).
-
Neither are rare or nonexistent.
Iridium is a whole bunch of smallsats. Launches on Falcon 9.
Planet has a huge constellation of cubesats. Launch from ISS and rideshare.
-
Iridium cluster excluded. These constellations are not what I and others mean by the small satellite market.
Specifically it is the tiny satellites and the one or two 100kg approximately that the operator cannot bulk together for a larger rocket than the 100kg to 400kg range of the launchers coming up.
-
Iridium cluster excluded. These constellations are not what I and others mean by the small satellite market.
Specifically it is the tiny satellites and the one or two 100kg approximately that the operator cannot bulk together for a larger rocket than the 100kg to 400kg range of the launchers coming up.
Constellations excluded??
Just how many non-constellation smallsat launches could there possibly be in a year? I can't believe it's anywhere near 50, especially not at $5 million.
The vast, VAST majority of the smallsat market is constellation satellites.
-
Iridium cluster excluded. These constellations are not what I and others mean by the small satellite market.
Specifically it is the tiny satellites and the one or two 100kg approximately that the operator cannot bulk together for a larger rocket than the 100kg to 400kg range of the launchers coming up.
Constellations excluded??
Just how many non-constellation smallsat launches could there possibly be in a year? I can't believe it's anywhere near 50, especially not at $5 million.
The vast, VAST majority of the smallsat market is constellation satellites.
Fine, if that is your definition of the market that is being hyped at this time. But constellations are not what I hear as what the market is. These constellations of course can be launched by large rockets so they are not part of the problem of things that cannot get to orbit.
Becks main PR sentence that will annoy you is 'space is now open for business'. Think about what he means by this, if you believe him. He is a smart cookie.
-
Iridium cluster excluded. These constellations are not what I and others mean by the small satellite market.
Specifically it is the tiny satellites and the one or two 100kg approximately that the operator cannot bulk together for a larger rocket than the 100kg to 400kg range of the launchers coming up.
Constellations excluded??
Just how many non-constellation smallsat launches could there possibly be in a year? I can't believe it's anywhere near 50, especially not at $5 million.
The vast, VAST majority of the smallsat market is constellation satellites.
Fine, if that is your definition of the market that is being hyped at this time. But constellations are not what I hear as what the market is. These constellations of course can be launched by large rockets so they are not part of the problem of things that cannot get to orbit.
Becks main PR sentence that will annoy you is 'space is now open for business'. Think about what he means by this, if you believe him. He is a smart cookie.
Could you be specific about 'what you hear what the market is', or 'what you and others mean' and how that would amount to 50 launches a year? The only thing that I might be annoyed by is the sheer emptyness of such phrases so everybody can just project whatever meaning they want on them. At least you're not hiding the fact that you're asking other to do the thinking/reasoning.
Beck's PR just says "we've built, now come already". Hopefully enough people can and want to. Until I see stronger (or any at all, actually) argumentation to support that, I count that as wishfull thinking on my part.
-
Eric Berger Verified account @SciGuySpace 24s25 seconds ago
"Beck thinks Rocket Lab has now solved the orbit issue." Plans two more test launches in the next six weeks.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-06-29/at-18-he-strapped-a-rocket-engine-to-his-bike-now-he-s-taking-on-spacex
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/880405735464685568 (https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/880405735464685568)
-
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-06-29/at-18-he-strapped-a-rocket-engine-to-his-bike-now-he-s-taking-on-spacex
This is a great article by the way, written by Ashlee Vance who wrote Musk's biography.
Strapping a home built liquid rocket engine* to a bike and riding it is just all sorts of crazy!
*This may have "just" been a steam powered engine and not an H2O2 related motor.
http://rocketbelts.americanrocketman.com/steam.html
-
Eric Berger Verified account @SciGuySpace 24s25 seconds ago
"Beck thinks Rocket Lab has now solved the orbit issue." Plans two more test launches in the next six weeks.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-06-29/at-18-he-strapped-a-rocket-engine-to-his-bike-now-he-s-taking-on-spacex
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/880405735464685568 (https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/880405735464685568)
Interesting article. Great to hear they're going to try again this quickly. But I found this statement somewhat confusing:
Beck’s goal of launching at least once a week is also more ambitious than SpaceX’s once a month.
Seems a bit dated, no? And somewhat misleading at best.
-
Interesting article. Great to hear they're going to try again this quickly. But I found this statement somewhat confusing:
Beck’s goal of launching at least once a week is also more ambitious than SpaceX’s once a month.
Seems a bit dated, no? And somewhat misleading at best.
Just shows you can't believe everything you read in the press. All we know is (a) they're preparing for another round of tests, to be carried out when they're ready and not necessarily before and (b) there's nothing preventing them from launching "at least once a week" if they have a goodly supply of rockets ready to go.
-
It's actually a new article with real quotes from a journalist I respect... and that's saying a lot.
I'm really glad to see Beck's goal of regular launches hasn't died, yet. One of the fundamental tenants of the Cheap Access To Space belief that Beck appears to subscribe to is that you build a market by launching on a regular schedule, whether there's payloads available or not. This gives confidence to your sales force that the capacity really is there and when the industry sees launch space going to waste they line up for discounts. Soon you have more demand than supply and prices increase. This puts pressure on your engineering team to increase their output. A virtuous cycle forms.
-
Eric Berger Verified account @SciGuySpace 24s25 seconds ago
"Beck thinks Rocket Lab has now solved the orbit issue." Plans two more test launches in the next six weeks.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-06-29/at-18-he-strapped-a-rocket-engine-to-his-bike-now-he-s-taking-on-spacex
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/880405735464685568 (https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/880405735464685568)
Interesting article. Great to hear they're going to try again this quickly. But I found this statement somewhat confusing:
Beck’s goal of launching at least once a week is also more ambitious than SpaceX’s once a month.
Seems a bit dated, no? And somewhat misleading at best.
Yeah, I like Vance. But he should know better than that misleading quote. SpaceX wants just as many launches, I've heard a relatively near-term target of like 50-60 launches per year. And SpaceX talks about THOUSANDS of launches per year.
-
Okay, 3D-printed engines, that could be a good way to produce 500 units per year. But how do they intend to manufacture 50 sets of carbon fiber kerolox rocket stages per year? I realize it's not a huge vehicle, but that seems like a pretty labor-intensive enterprise.
-
when the industry sees launch space going to waste they line up for discounts. Soon you have more demand than supply and prices increase.
Discounts are quite risky. Many customers will rather wait for discounts than purchase at full price. This can annihilate the profit margin.
But there are many other pricing and scheduling strategies that would indeed benefit from regular launches.
-
Okay, 3D-printed engines, that could be a good way to produce 500 units per year. But how do they intend to manufacture 50 sets of carbon fiber kerolox rocket stages per year? I realize it's not a huge vehicle, but that seems like a pretty labor-intensive enterprise.
They want to automate composite tank construction. I don't how they plan to do it but this video is one possible way. Just like engines scaling is easy, just buy more 3D printers or robotics.
Production line assembly of engines and stages shouldn't be any different from any other massed produced product.
It is not only small LV that are being massed produced but also small satellites, Airbus and Oneweb are gearing up to make 100s a year.
https://youtu.be/jc52ssQ65cU
-
Offhand, does anyone know how much payload Electron can throw into a direct TLI?
-
Offhand, does anyone know how much payload Electron can throw into a direct TLI?
None. It is a LEO launcher.
Customers like Moon Express need to provide their own propulsion in the payload for TLI.
-
Offhand, does anyone know how much payload Electron can throw into a direct TLI?
None. It is a LEO launcher.
Customers like Moon Express need to provide their own propulsion in the payload for TLI.
The CEO of Rocket Lab has said that the Electron is capable of sending a payload to the Moon, via direct TLI.
"In the meantime, Rocket Lab continues to prepare for the Moon Express mission, one of the contenders for the Google Lunar X Prize competition. The California-based company is buying three Electron launches to send versions of its MX-1 lunar lander. “The first vehicle is being manufactured as we speak,” [CEO Peter] Beck says. The mission is designed to launch slightly under 10 kg to the lunar surface. “It’s a more unusual mission for us,” he adds.
As the goal is to reach [lunar] transfer orbit, “it is an easier mission for us. It’s an easier trajectory for us than Sun-synchronous, so it is very simple with no additional burn needed to circularize the orbit.” The mission will, however, “stretch the legs” of the Electron, adds Beck. The first of the Moon Express launches is also scheduled by year’s end."
http://aviationweek.com/space/rocket-lab-well-ahead-after-initial-launch-test
-
It's actually a new article with real quotes from a journalist I respect... and that's saying a lot.
I'm really glad to see Beck's goal of regular launches hasn't died, yet. One of the fundamental tenants of the Cheap Access To Space belief that Beck appears to subscribe to is that you build a market by launching on a regular schedule, whether there's payloads available or not. This gives confidence to your sales force that the capacity really is there and when the industry sees launch space going to waste they line up for discounts. Soon you have more demand than supply and prices increase. This puts pressure on your engineering team to increase their output. A virtuous cycle forms.
Planet has what must be pretty expendable payloads for RocketLab's second and third test flight.
There's probably always an underfunded payload somewhere waiting for a free ride.
Is that what you meant by "launch space going to waste"?
-
MX1E is 250kg fully fuelled, Electron is only good for about 200-250kg to LEO.
MX1E will be doing all the work from LEO to surface, at 5.8km/s it has just enough DV to do it.
As cubesat fan I think the 1st stage of MX2 is just as interesting as landers. This is basically earth departure stage allowing cubesats launched on Electron to be delivered directly to GEO, LLO and beyond.
While there are cubesat propulsion systems in development that can take them from LEO to Jupiter, having LV deliver them to earth escape, would free up more mass for useful payloads. Plus allow for simpler/cheaper propulsion systems.
There may end up being more commercial demand for EDS than lander.
-
Update from 14 June 2017. We'll be getting live streaming for the next flights. Rocketlab have also changed their twitter handle to @RocketLab.
https://www.rocketlabusa.com/latest/progress-update-june/
"We’re busy analyzing data from flight one, and I know everyone is looking forward to hearing what we have learned. While we have a strong understanding of why we believe we didn’t quite reach orbit, we’ll be looking to make a formal conclusion about an absolute root cause. As soon as we’re ready, we’ll look to make more details publicly available."
"One of piece of news which may be of interest - we’re supported by a wonderful fan base, and in recognition of them we have made the commitment to stream our second and third test flight."
-
MX1E is 250kg fully fuelled, Electron is only good for about 200-250kg to LEO.
MX1E will be doing all the work from LEO to surface, at 5.8km/s it has just enough DV to do it.
There may end up being more commercial demand for EDS than lander.
IOW the payload is borderline for the launcher, but both are in spec, as long as the launcher performs at least to spec, and the payload mass does not grow.
IRL all launchers have a margin for mass growth so it's tough, but that's the price you pay for building a payload with an ambitious target on a limited budget.
If successful it will be a significant coup for RocketLab.
An EDS for cubesats?
Now if they could get JPL interested....
-
MX express are not totally relying on Electron for future missions, MX2 will most likely fly on LauncherOne.
-
Analysis of data from Rocket Lab’s first Electron test flight in May “could be available” in the next week:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11896478
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/891656572228833284
-
Analysis of data from Rocket Lab’s first Electron test flight in May “could be available” in the next week:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11896478
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/891656572228833284
That is exciting for us following Rocket Lab! There was also this from the article
Beck said then a second test launch was about two or three months away and the company hoped to get its commercial launches underway as soon as it was satisfied with the test programme.
I recall them saying after the first launch, that the next test launch was anticipated in 2 months. 2 months later and it's 2 to 3 months out. Of course, want to see the next one succeed and another 3 months wait is worth it to help ensure success, but things are getting really tight for Moon Express.
-
Well, there will always be optimists and pessimists until we actually see second flight hardware getting to the processing/launch site. The "2 to 3 months away" have been extensively used in RocketLab's history before.
Remember when Peter Beck stated they were 6 months to launch the prototype flight, and we were mid-2015?
Anyway not to imply that they won't respect this new deadline, there are the next step I'm waiting for on the RocketLab side that would make me more confident:
- Pictures of 2nd flight hardware (always good on the PR side)
- Incident/victorious failure report about the first flight.
- Some info on the payload side since I understand the 2nd flight will target a satellite injection.
-
Remember when Peter Beck stated they were 6 months to launch the prototype flight, and we were mid-2015?
I'm not sure why this always happens. The press asks for a launch date. The company lists off the things they have to get done and why they hope to finish getting them done. The inevitable happens - in this case the local politicians tried to squeeze them on the launch site, so they had to start all over again at a different location - and slips occur. I imagine this is what you're referring to:
The first Electron rocket is supposed to launch this year, and though Beck didn’t have a specific date on hand, he gave “mid-December” as the current target.
“It would be nice if we were just building a rocket. If we were just building a rocket, life would be far easier. But, we’re not,” Beck said.
Besides the rocket, they have to complete the launch range, the tracking infrastructure with sites across the globe, and the FAA licensing process, among other things.
http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/missions/commercial/rocket-lab-electron-rutherford-peter-beck-started-first-place/#cMtTxcPMofXRsvsq.99
I think that was pretty clear, but all you remember is Dec 2015.
-
Remember when Peter Beck stated they were 6 months to launch the prototype flight, and we were mid-2015?
I'm not sure why this always happens. The press asks for a launch date. The company lists off the things they have to get done and why they hope to finish getting them done. The inevitable happens - in this case the local politicians tried to squeeze them on the launch site, so they had to start all over again at a different location - and slips occur. I imagine this is what you're referring to:
The first Electron rocket is supposed to launch this year, and though Beck didn’t have a specific date on hand, he gave “mid-December” as the current target.
“It would be nice if we were just building a rocket. If we were just building a rocket, life would be far easier. But, we’re not,” Beck said.
Besides the rocket, they have to complete the launch range, the tracking infrastructure with sites across the globe, and the FAA licensing process, among other things.
http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/missions/commercial/rocket-lab-electron-rutherford-peter-beck-started-first-place/#cMtTxcPMofXRsvsq.99
I think that was pretty clear, but all you remember is Dec 2015.
But... But... I thought only Elon Musk 'lied' about launch dates. ;D
-
Remember when Peter Beck stated they were 6 months to launch the prototype flight, and we were mid-2015?
I'm not sure why this always happens. The press asks for a launch date. The company lists off the things they have to get done and why they hope to finish getting them done. The inevitable happens - in this case the local politicians tried to squeeze them on the launch site, so they had to start all over again at a different location - and slips occur. I imagine this is what you're referring to:
The first Electron rocket is supposed to launch this year, and though Beck didn’t have a specific date on hand, he gave “mid-December” as the current target.
“It would be nice if we were just building a rocket. If we were just building a rocket, life would be far easier. But, we’re not,” Beck said.
Besides the rocket, they have to complete the launch range, the tracking infrastructure with sites across the globe, and the FAA licensing process, among other things.
http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/missions/commercial/rocket-lab-electron-rutherford-peter-beck-started-first-place/#cMtTxcPMofXRsvsq.99
I think that was pretty clear, but all you remember is Dec 2015.
But... But... I thought only Elon Musk 'lied' about launch dates. ;D
..and all he had to do was build a rocket. ;D
-
But... But... I thought only Elon Musk 'lied' about launch dates. ;D
RocketLab's development has been a lot more transparent than SpaceX's, but they're both great compared to... say, Blue Origin.
-
Well, my intention wasn't to (re)start the debate about the supposed 2015 launch date (since you're interested though, my POV on the subject is that Mr Beck was dreaming or unaware of the subject of launchpads in 2015, and I remember reading the same ITW thinking "how in the world could he achieve that"). It's been nearly 2 years now, and compared to the others majors in the market at the time (Firefly and Virgin Orbit) RocketLab is not in a bad position.
I simply wanted to point out that stated agendas are sometime more a state of mind that real, hardware achievable dates: the 2-3 months stated timeframe could very well be an optimist range... And that is why I listed the 3 main points to observe in order to better qualify the remaining time before the second launch. Those are the few evidence I'm really looking for.
-
Moved from the "Maiden Flight" (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42966.msg1709706#msg1709706) thread about L-M launching Electron from Scotland:
As someone who has spent a winter in the Outer Hebrides... there was some concern earlier about winter weather holding up launches from Mahia, and I can't imagine this site being very different from that point of view.
Except that the winter weather would be offset from that of NZ by half a year.
One of the two sites would always be in or near summer.
-
Moved from the "Maiden Flight" (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42966.msg1709706#msg1709706) thread about L-M launching Electron from Scotland:
As someone who has spent a winter in the Outer Hebrides... there was some concern earlier about winter weather holding up launches from Mahia, and I can't imagine this site being very different from that point of view.
Except that the winter weather would be offset from that of NZ by half a year.
One of the two sites would always be in or near summer.
Winter weather not that bad. We tend to get fronts rolling through every few days with nice day or two between fronts. There should be at least 1-2 days a week when weather is good. Even more options if they can do night launches.
-
Moved from the "Maiden Flight" (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42966.msg1709706#msg1709706) thread about L-M launching Electron from Scotland:
As someone who has spent a winter in the Outer Hebrides... there was some concern earlier about winter weather holding up launches from Mahia, and I can't imagine this site being very different from that point of view.
Except that the winter weather would be offset from that of NZ by half a year.
One of the two sites would always be in or near summer.
The point on the Globe exactly opposite Mahia is about 200 km south east of Madrid.
-
Jeff Foust @jeff_foust
For those interested in mission patches, the one for Rocket Lab's 2nd launch, called "Still Testing." #smallsat
https://mobile.twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/894977589172764676
-
Rocket Lab have published the findings of their investigation into the failure of the first launch:
https://www.rocketlabusa.com/latest/rocket-lab-completes-post-flight-analysis/
"Rocket Lab’s investigation team determined the launch, named ‘It’s a Test’, was terminated due to a data loss time out, which was caused by misconfiguration of telemetry equipment owned and operated by a third-party contractor who was supporting the launch from Rocket Lab’s Launch Complex 1."
So, on the bad side, a really annoying reason for a failure; but on the good side, the rocket itself seemed to be performing perfectly.
-
the rocket itself seemed to be performing perfectly.
Well, nothing that can't be fixed in software.
-
Spaceflight Now article on return to flight, including an interview with Peter Beck and an explanation for that puzzling roll:
https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/08/13/rocket-lab-finishes-test-flight-inquiry-plans-second-launch-later-this-year/
... and the first reader comment identifies the "unnamed contractor" who misconfigured the ground equipment on the first flight.
-
... and the first reader comment identifies the "unnamed contractor" who misconfigured the ground equipment on the first flight.
Which he copied directly from my comment above, word for word.
I wonder if it was these guys RL threw under the bus?
Rocket Lab USA 2017 Contract Update
The Range Safety Telemetry System has been shipped to New Zealand with non-state funds.
Unfortunately, for Rocket Lab they did not have any launches in 2016 so it pushed all the launches to 2017. The 2017 contract is to do what we would have done in 2016, to support them with the RSTS. Eventually they will operate from Mahia by themselves.
KING said AAC has four people on site, getting antennas set up and ready to support the launch vehicle by March 4.
CAMPBELL confirmed Rocket Lab has selected Pacific Spaceport Complex – Alaska as their U.S. polar launch site. He is currently negotiating a contract for launches starting in 2018.
http://akaerospace.com/sites/default/files/minutes/2017%2002%2023%20Board%20of%20Directors%20Minutes.pdf
-
But... But... I thought only Elon Musk 'lied' about launch dates. ;D
AFAIK No one's called Musk a liar about launch dates.
Just very very optimistic on outcomes of events leading to them (like the science that needs to get done first). :(
More relevant to this thread is that Beck does not have $100m in his bank account to run the project to begin with.
[EDIT. Read the Spaceflight now article. Looks like they've covered all the major flight stages except payload separation. Difficult to do without a payload to separate. :)
New engine cycles for rocket engines are very rare so to get this system running without a hitch on both the booster and upper stages is a huge achievement. Every launch is a first time for ELV's but the prospects look good for the next one. ]
-
I hate to be negative - but unless they've already got something planned and 'up their sleeves', I've heard of no live broadcast of the first launch attempt.
When STS-1 launched on April 12th, 1981: pretty much every country in the civilized world had live coverage of the launch - except New Zealand.
I can give testimony that I stayed up to probably 3am for the first shuttle television coverage in 1981, Hamilton New Zealand. It might have been an abort, I cannot remember that detail.
-
Throwing under the bus is not what I'd call pointing out the cause of the telemetry loss and then not naming them.
-
2nd stage sep:
https://player.vimeo.com/video/218914240 (https://player.vimeo.com/video/218914240)
Needs more mjpeg
-
Call SpaceX. They did a jpeg fix up and got good results. They asked on the Internet for help.
-
...They asked on the Internet for help.
Yes, that project was run on some nerdy-rocket-forum, such geeks there!
-
This was an interesting comment from Beck:-
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/894976829743800320
Is Rocket Lab already seeing signs of weaker demand from the big constellations? If so then the "100's of flights" business model of Vector looks very fragile and the decision of the revamped Firefly Aerospace to go for 1,000kg payload is probably quite smart.
-
Great video of a static fire of the second core. A reply from their Twitter suggests a NET of mid-October, T-6 weeks.
https://twitter.com/RocketLab/status/902713171407806464 (https://twitter.com/RocketLab/status/902713171407806464)
-
https://youtu.be/1L46U6brphI (https://youtu.be/1L46U6brphI)
-
RL applied for and were granted 3 flight termination-related waivers:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2017-06-30/pdf/2017-13567.pdf
SUMMARY
This notice concerns three
petitions for waiver submitted to the
FAA by Rocket Lab USA Inc. (RL) for
the Flight Termination Receiver (FTR)
Qualification by Similarity (QBS): A
petition to waive the requirement that a
component may be qualified based on
similarity to a component that has
already been qualified for use only if the
environments encountered by the
previously qualified component during
its qualification or flight history were
equal or more severe than the Rocket
Lab qualification environments; a
petition to waive the Electromagnetic
Interference and Compatibility (EMI/
EMC) on the same units; and a petition
to waive the requirement that the same
manufacturer must produce the
qualified and the unqualified
component in the same location using
identical tools and manufacturing
processes. The FAA grants these three
petitions.
DATES
Issued in Washington, DC, on
May 15, 2017.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
Background
RL submitted a petition to the FAA’s
Office of Commercial Space
Transportation (AST) requesting relief
from regulatory requirements for a
launch license for flight of Electron test
flight missions from Mahia, New
Zealand. Specifically, RL requested
relief from 14 CFR E417.7(f)(2) and (5),
Qualification Testing and Analysis by
Similarity for the Flight Termination
Receiver. For Qualification, the Flight
Termination Receiver is required to
meet Table E417.19–2, which states
with note (5): ‘‘The same three sample
components must undergo each test
designated with an X. For a test
designated with a quantity of less than
three, each sample component tested
must be one of the original three sample
components.’’ For Qualification Testing
and Analysis by Similarity, Part 417
Appendix E section 417.7(f) provides
the requirements a launch operator must
satisfy in order to qualify or re-qualify
a flight termination system component’s
design through qualification by
similarity to tests performed on
identical or similar hardware. Section
E417.7(f)(2) states that to qualify
component ‘‘A’’ based on similarity to
component ‘‘B’’, that has already been
qualified for use, a launch operator must
demonstrate that the environment
encountered by ‘‘B’’ must have been
equal to or more severe than the
qualification environments required for
‘‘A’’. Specifically, RL used different
components for the random vibration
qualification test and the EMI/EMC
qualification test instead of the original
three qualification sample components
used for the other tests under
E417.7(f)(2). Section E417.7(f)(5)
requires that the same manufacturer
produce ‘‘A’’ and ‘‘B’’ in the same
location using identical tools and
manufacturing processes. Specifically,
RL’s sample ‘‘A’’ and ‘‘B’’ were
manufactured at different locations with
different manufacturing processes.
The FAA licenses the launch of a
launch vehicle and reentry of a reentry
vehicle under authority granted to the
Secretary of Transportation in the
Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984,
as amended and re-codified by 51 U.S.C.
Subtitle V, chapter 509 (Chapter 509),
and delegated to the FAA Administrator
and the Associate Administrator for
Commercial Space Transportation, who
exercises licensing authority under
Chapter 509.
RL is a private commercial space
flight company. RL seeks to lower the
cost and increase the frequency of
access to space for small payloads,
potentially expanding the opportunity
for space services and research. RL’s
petition for waiver addresses all
upcoming Electron test flights that RL
plans to launch from the Mahia
Peninsula, New Zealand. The Electron
launch is the first planned test flight
from the privately-owned Rocket Lab
Launch Complex at Mahia Peninsula in
Hawkes Bay, New Zealand. The launch
location is capable of hosting launches
to the northeast, east, and south. The
area within 20 NM surrounding the
launch site is extremely remote, and has
a low population density. The launch
flight corridor will have minimal impact
on air and marine traffic.
Etc.
-
Looks pretty standard and reasonable. Also, the FTS ended up working well. Too well ..
-
I'm doing a Sunday PM Google. Bunch of new stuff showing up for RL.
Here's another interesting doc:
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/licenses_permits/media/LLS%2017-095%20-%20Rocket%20Lab%20USA%20-%20License%20and%20Orders%202017-05-15.pdf
The FAA license only permits 3 launches with INERT payloads. So that means no actual payloads this year.
-
I guess that's the holdup on the next launch... paperwork.
-
How about some pics
https://twitter.com/vacant3rdman/status/912168899243737088
Rocket! @RocketLab have brought an Electron 2nd stage to #IAC2017. Setting it in person really helps get an idea of the size.
-
#IAC2017 has kicked off. Come by and see us!
https://twitter.com/rocketlab/status/912114755216719872
-
I'm doing a Sunday PM Google. Bunch of new stuff showing up for RL.
Here's another interesting doc:
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/licenses_permits/media/LLS%2017-095%20-%20Rocket%20Lab%20USA%20-%20License%20and%20Orders%202017-05-15.pdf
The FAA license only permits 3 launches with INERT payloads. So that means no actual payloads this year.
Rocket Lab doesn't agree with you: https://twitter.com/rocketlab/status/912462423445037057
Planet and Spire have payloads on the next launch.
-
Inbox: Rocket Lab announces it will carry four cubesats, two each from Planet and Spire, on its next Electron test launch in Oct. #IAC2017
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/912461187652005888
-
Does inert mean here; no own propulsion?
-
Does inert mean here; no own propulsion?
Inert would just be a mass simulator. They must be getting a license modification if they're putting payloads on the next flight.
-
When is RocketLab's next flight? They were talking as if they'd fly a whole bunch of times, but only have the one flight.
-
I'm doing a Sunday PM Google. Bunch of new stuff showing up for RL.
Here's another interesting doc:
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/licenses_permits/media/LLS%2017-095%20-%20Rocket%20Lab%20USA%20-%20License%20and%20Orders%202017-05-15.pdf
The FAA license only permits 3 launches with INERT payloads. So that means no actual payloads this year.
Rocket Lab doesn't agree with you: https://twitter.com/rocketlab/status/912462423445037057
Planet and Spire have payloads on the next launch.
It's not me they have to agree with, it's the FAA launch licence in the link. If they deviate from that they need a new license.
-
The most likely explanation is that a new license is in the works. They know what they are doing.
-
Rocket Lab are trying to trademark the words "CURIE" and "EINSTEIN" for their rocket engines.
https://trademarks.justia.com/owners/rocket-lab-usa-inc-3563559/
Does this mean a series of new engines in the works?
-
Rocket Lab are trying to trademark the words "CURIE" and "EINSTEIN" for their rocket engines.
https://trademarks.justia.com/owners/rocket-lab-usa-inc-3563559/
Does this mean a series of new engines in the works?
Seriously hope not. Getting a trademark just in case is just a good practice and doesn't cost a lot, plus Rutherford-Curie-Einstein is a good combo.
I sincerely hope they focus on building out operations and actually deliver on high cadence launch, rather than get bogged down with yet another R&D program.
-
When is RocketLab's next flight? They were talking as if they'd fly a whole bunch of times, but only have the one flight.
The lady in the RocketLab booth said the next launch is in the next two months, so probably in November.
-
NOTAM issued for October 20th to November 8th:
(https://i.redd.it/vdw4vivv7dpz.png)
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/RocketLab/comments/73raw8/notam_issued_starting_october_20th_ending/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/RocketLab/comments/73raw8/notam_issued_starting_october_20th_ending/)
-
Here is how apparently how some kiwis experienced the first launch. Posted by Wairoa District Council a couple days ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nloaesD9O1M
And here they are looking forward to the second launch:
Wairoa looking forward to second rocket launch (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11928344)
Wairoa Mayor Craig Little said he understood the rocket would be transported to the site in the next fortnight, and could launch as soon as the end of October.
Not much new in there
-
New article about space business in New Zealand and RocketLab:
New Zealand space industry prepares for blast off
TOM PULLAR-STRECKER
Last updated 05:00, October 15 2017
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/97741414/nz-space-industry-prepares-for-take-off (https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/97741414/nz-space-industry-prepares-for-take-off)
Article includes:
Despite a communication issue forcing the company to abort its last test flight in May, Rocket Lab's next launch from the Māhia Peninsular is set for the next couple of months.
[...]
The Electron rocket will be carrying a real cargo of four weather-mapping and ship-tracking satellites from paying customers, making it a commercial flight in all but name and (managed) expectations.
-
The length of pause between first and this second flight is a bit unnerving, especially considering that according to RL, there was nothing wrong with the rocket.
Doesn't instill a lot of confidence for ability to do high frequency launches quite yet
-
I think they used time to modify 2nd vehicle based on data from first launch.
Because 2nd stage didn't complete its mission they've missed out on lot of data. So expect a delay for 3rd launch even if 2nd launch is successful.
-
The length of pause between first and this second flight is a bit unnerving, especially considering that according to RL, there was nothing wrong with the rocket.
Doesn't instill a lot of confidence for ability to do high frequency launches quite yet
Why? During Falcon 9's early years, SpaceX regularly had over half a year between launches, without any failures. Today, they're the most frequent launcher. How spoiled we've become.
Expect the same to happen to BFR.
-
There are worse launch sites ...
Launch Complex 1 as seen from Range Control. Few weeks away from #Electron being on site for flight two prep #StillTesting
https://twitter.com/rocketlab/status/920019079632580610
-
The winner of the @BayerScienceNZ Supreme New Zealand Innovation Award is @RocketLab! Innovation to infinity and beyond #NZInnovationAwards
https://twitter.com/innovation_nz/status/920905471728304128 (https://twitter.com/innovation_nz/status/920905471728304128)
-
Press release from Alaska Aerospace on support for the next launch from New Zealand and launches from Kodiak:
AAC will also provide support for another Rocket Lab launch in New Zealand in December or January, and Campbell said he hopes the company will be ready to launch from Alaska in 2019.
http://akaerospace.com/news/commercial-rocket-launches-coming-kodiak-island
-
May launch by next week according to SpaceflightNow:
https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/12/01/rocket-lab-to-launch-second-orbital-class-rocket-as-soon-as-next-week/
-
May launch by next week according to SpaceflightNow:
https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/12/01/rocket-lab-to-launch-second-orbital-class-rocket-as-soon-as-next-week/
Launch preparations and details (including possible dates, windows etc) are all in the specific launch thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43625.0).
-
The revised launch licence for Electron test flights has been issued. Putting it on this thread because it covers multiple flights.
-
The revised launch licence for Electron test flights has been issued. Putting it on this thread because it covers multiple flights.
The only real change is they are allowed to carry payloads now.
-
Looks like Rocket Lab got a DIUx OTA award as well as Virgin? Any details on the launch date?
http://www.fbodaily.com/archive/2017/10-October/15-Oct-2017/FBO-04712944.htm
-
They need to get a move on to win the Lunar Xprize for Moon Express..
-
They need to get a move on to win the Lunar Xprize for Moon Express..
They have until the end of March. Plenty of time, as long as they don't lose another one.
-
The revised launch licence for Electron test flights has been issued. Putting it on this thread because it covers multiple flights.
The only real change is they are allowed to carry payloads now.
That could be quite significant to their cash flow, assuming their future test launches are more successful than their first.
-
From Recent Alaska Aerospace board meeting minutes:
http://akaerospace.com/sites/default/files/minutes/2017%2008%2017%20Board%20of%20Directors%20Minutes.pdf (http://akaerospace.com/sites/default/files/minutes/2017%2008%2017%20Board%20of%20Directors%20Minutes.pdf)
10. Executive Session
CAMPBELL, President and CEO read the request for Executive Session:
I request that the Chair now entertain a motion that the Board of Directors convene in Executive Session to discuss the following topics and as set forth on the agenda approved for today's meeting:
Rocket Lab May 25th Launch Support to discuss matters within the contract required by law to be kept confidential, matters involving consideration of records that are not subject to public disclosure and involving trade secrets.
Also this:
http://akaerospace.com/sites/default/files/minutes/2017%2005%2025%20Board%20of%20Directors%20Minutes.pdf (http://akaerospace.com/sites/default/files/minutes/2017%2005%2025%20Board%20of%20Directors%20Minutes.pdf)
Rocket Lab USA New Zealand Operations Update
CAMPBELL commended the dedicated AAC team that supported the Electron Launch.
He believes it may be 2019 before Rocket Lab is autonomous, noting they plan to launch every three to four weeks from September to January.
Rocket Lab USA 2017 Contract Update
CAMPBELL’s goal is for Rocket Lab to train their crew to minimize the people we send to New Zealand.
The contract stated they would have two people shadowing our crew on this launch and there was no one. It will depend on Rocket Lab’s ability to provide their people to betrained before we can relinquish any authority. The 2017 contract is $2.2M, and 2 weeks per launch. Campbell does not expect there will be four launches without additional personnel support.
-
A fresh batch of Rutherford engines rolling off the line at our Huntington Beach factory. Not long until these are integrated onto our fourth Electron launch vehicle. #Electron #Rutherford
https://twitter.com/rocketlab/status/953034798443802625
-
A fresh batch of Rutherford engines rolling off the line at our Huntington Beach factory. Not long until these are integrated onto our fourth Electron launch vehicle. #Electron #Rutherford
https://twitter.com/rocketlab/status/953034798443802625
Wow, quite the progress on their fourth rocket already! I wonder how the third is doing
-
Given the second is at the launch site, I guess the third is undergoing final assembly at the office in Auckland.
The bows are kinda cute. Must be an American thing..! :)
-
I guess there's another thread where the new NET has been mentioned, but I'll repeat it here where it should be:
New year, new #StillTesting launch window! A nine day launch window opens January 20 NZDT for our second Electron rocket. Target lift-off during this time will be between 14:30 - 18:30 NZDT (1:30 - 5:30 UTC). We'll be live streaming via our Facebook page and the Rocket Lab website.
-
Love the Bows on the Bells in the photo.
-
This week we successfully completed a second stage flight acceptance test for our third Electron launch vehicle. Many more hot fires to follow this year! #Rutherford #Electron
https://twitter.com/rocketlab/status/953734300188393473
-
I wonder, if there was an electron tri-core with electrical cross-feed, and if there were bigger batteries in the side cores (with enough juice to run the central core until staging), if the reduction in the weight of the battery in the central core would give worthwhile improvements in performance?
-
I wonder, if there was an electron tri-core with electrical cross-feed, and if there were bigger batteries in the side cores (with enough juice to run the central core until staging), if the reduction in the weight of the battery in the central core would give worthwhile improvements in performance?
The limitation with the batteries is how fast they can be discharged, which is about 2 to 3 minutes at best. So having the boosters supply charge to the core may not be an advantage, if the batteries in the core can then not be fully discharged.
-
Was the upper-stage 'hot swap' switching from one battery to another, then dumping the expended battery? Photos of the stage show nothing, but renders (http://space.skyrocket.de/img_sat/its-a-test__1.jpg) show two modules that could be battery packs and are in the right location to be visible on the stream.
-
Was the upper-stage 'hot swap' switching from one battery to another, then dumping the expended battery? Photos of the stage show nothing, but renders (http://space.skyrocket.de/img_sat/its-a-test__1.jpg) show two modules that could be battery packs and are in the right location to be visible on the stream.
Yup.
-
It had a seemingly high TWR on liftoff, and I heard the first stage engines aren't even at their full thrust. Is there a possibility of lengthening the stage(s?), similar to the Falcon 9 1.1 vs 1.0?
-
Also noticeable is how fast the first stage goes from ignition to full thrust and then liftoff. Seems like just over 1 second, compared to about 3 for Falcon 9 for example. Electric pumps must take very little time to ramp up to full speed after ignition of the combustion chamber.
-
Also noticeable is how fast the first stage goes from ignition to full thrust and then liftoff. Seems like just over 1 second, compared to about 3 for Falcon 9 for example. Electric pumps must take very little time to ramp up to full speed after ignition of the combustion chamber.
Your also dealing with electric motors that have full torque from 1rpm and very small masses given the size of the engines. You want it to ramp up fast as every second its running is power being depleted from the pack. I thought I heard a hotswap callout during first stage burn too, if so then it's ditching a set of batteries at some point during flight.
Pretty nifty design but there is probably limited growth margin until there are higher density battery packs. Still an amazing job on their part.
-
A bit of news from Jeff Foust:
Spoke briefly this evening with Rocket Lab’s Peter Beck. A lot of data analysis ahead, but everything so far indicates the vehicle performed as planned, releasing the payloads into 300x500 km orbit “well within our commercial accuracy.”
And:
Beck’s previously said that, if this electron launch was successful, they’d go into commercial service. He said tonight the next launch will be in the “coming months” but did not disclose the payload.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/954914537857339393 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/954914537857339393)
-
Found the perfect way to celebrate Electron launches from Mahia:
-
It had a seemingly high TWR on liftoff, and I heard the first stage engines aren't even at their full thrust.
Is there a possibility of lengthening the stage(s?), similar to the Falcon 9 1.1 vs 1.0?
With values from Rocketlabs & SpaceX, Electron, at 1.2 m dia & 17 m long has 75% the fineness of the 3.7 m dia by 70 m long Falcon 9.
In theory Electron could be stretched by an additional third, 5.7 m, before matching SpaceX's high fineness.
We shall see if they ever try stretching it.
As batteries and electric pumps improve with time, I wouldn’t be surprised to see some growth.
PS. Wow! Was that ever a clean launch!
Straight as an arrow and smooth.
The biggest fluctuations were video compression artfacts in the otherwise very stable exhaust.
-
Was the upper-stage 'hot swap' switching from one battery to another, then dumping the expended battery? Photos of the stage show nothing, but renders (http://space.skyrocket.de/img_sat/its-a-test__1.jpg) show two modules that could be battery packs and are in the right location to be visible on the stream.
Yup.
I remember the dropping of battery packs being discussed on this forum at one tome. Nice to see our ideas were validated.
-
Watching the S2 burn, about 25 mins into the video, I think they hot-swapped batteries and then eject used battery packs, which is a unique feature of Electron.
(https://i.imgur.com/mkBrlsd.png)
-
Watching the S2 burn, about 25 mins into the video, I think they hot-swapped batteries and then eject used battery packs, which is a unique feature of Electron.
I also realised when they dropped them. It is a clever way to get rid of ballast.
-
I wonder, if there was an electron tri-core with electrical cross-feed, and if there were bigger batteries in the side cores (with enough juice to run the central core until staging), if the reduction in the weight of the battery in the central core would give worthwhile improvements in performance?
The limitation with the batteries is how fast they can be discharged, which is about 2 to 3 minutes at best. So having the boosters supply charge to the core may not be an advantage, if the batteries in the core can then not be fully discharged.
Does 'hot-swapping' suggest that this might be feasible? However, unless the core is going to orbit, then maybe not worthwhile.
-
Anyone know how the electric engines affect the vibration loads on the payload?
Can pogo and feed pressure variations be more quickly damped out with electric motors?
-
It had a seemingly high TWR on liftoff, and I heard the first stage engines aren't even at their full thrust.
Is there a possibility of lengthening the stage(s?), similar to the Falcon 9 1.1 vs 1.0?
With values from Rocketlabs & SpaceX, Electron, at 1.2 m dia & 17 m long has 75% the fineness of the 3.7 m dia by 70 m long Falcon 9.
In theory Electron could be stretched by an additional third, 5.7 m, before matching SpaceX's high fineness.
We shall see if they ever try stretching it.
As batteries and electric pumps improve with time, I wouldn’t be surprised to see some growth.
PS. Wow! Was that ever a clean launch!
Straight as an arrow and smooth.
The biggest fluctuations were video compression artfacts in the otherwise very stable exhaust.
Perfect the state of art
-
I wonder, if there was an electron tri-core with electrical cross-feed, and if there were bigger batteries in the side cores (with enough juice to run the central core until staging), if the reduction in the weight of the battery in the central core would give worthwhile improvements in performance?
The limitation with the batteries is how fast they can be discharged, which is about 2 to 3 minutes at best. So having the boosters supply charge to the core may not be an advantage, if the batteries in the core can then not be fully discharged.
Some hobby RC batteries could be discharged at 70C = 51 seconds
-
It had a seemingly high TWR on liftoff, and I heard the first stage engines aren't even at their full thrust. Is there a possibility of lengthening the stage(s?), similar to the Falcon 9 1.1 vs 1.0?
High TWR at liftoff then thottle down may improve overall performance regarding gravity loss and battery weight.
-
It had a seemingly high TWR on liftoff, and I heard the first stage engines aren't even at their full thrust. Is there a possibility of lengthening the stage(s?), similar to the Falcon 9 1.1 vs 1.0?
High TWR at liftoff then thottle down may improve overall performance regarding gravity loss and battery weight.
For small launchers, drag is _BAD_ as you get towards transonic, and you really want to move max Q higher in the atmosphere, as eating ten seconds of gravity loss while you coast upwards at 300m/s may use lots less fuel than trying to bull through.
Electron is almost big enough that this is less of a concern.
-
Pretty nifty design but there is probably limited growth margin until there are higher density battery packs. Still an amazing job on their part.
Or they switch over to advanced capacitors, especially if they jettison them like the battery packs currently.
-
I wonder, if there was an electron tri-core with electrical cross-feed, and if there were bigger batteries in the side cores (with enough juice to run the central core until staging), if the reduction in the weight of the battery in the central core would give worthwhile improvements in performance?
The limitation with the batteries is how fast they can be discharged, which is about 2 to 3 minutes at best. So having the boosters supply charge to the core may not be an advantage, if the batteries in the core can then not be fully discharged.
Some hobby RC batteries could be discharged at 70C = 51 seconds
F1 electric assist/kinetic-energy-recovery-system (KERS) batteries can be discharged at 200C, or fully discharged in less than 18 seconds. Energy density is low, however, and they need to be pre-heated to achieve those rates.
-
It had a seemingly high TWR on liftoff, and I heard the first stage engines aren't even at their full thrust. Is there a possibility of lengthening the stage(s?), similar to the Falcon 9 1.1 vs 1.0?
High TWR at liftoff then thottle down may improve overall performance regarding gravity loss and battery weight.
For small launchers, drag is _BAD_ as you get towards transonic, and you really want to move max Q higher in the atmosphere, as eating ten seconds of gravity loss while you coast upwards at 300m/s may use lots less fuel than trying to bull through.
Electron is almost big enough that this is less of a concern.
It looked to me like the trajectory was much more vertical than I'm used to until after stage 1 separation. I assumed it was an illusion but maybe they really did fly lofted to move max Q?
-
Anyone know how the electric engines affect the vibration loads on the payload?
Can pogo and feed pressure variations be more quickly damped out with electric motors?
That is a good question. If it's lower it will be a distinct differentiator for Electron.
As to the answer...
Well it doesn't have a separate gas generator for each engine (or any engine). That eliminates a whole set of vibration sources due to combustion instability. It also eliminates the spinning mass of the drive turbines (but replaces them with the spinning rotor in the motor, which should be more stable).
The rest (feed system, engines) are close enough to normal systems that their vibration levels should be about the same.
-
Some interesting observations of the launch by Ben Brockert:
These were my initial impressions from the Rocketlab launch video. Again, a huge accomplishment to make orbit on the second try, and I'm really glad they webcast the attempt.
A huge accomplishment, congrats to them. A few notes as an occasional liquid rocket engine guy:
* The upper stage exhaust was very sparky. That's usually only seen in solids, usually sparks in liquids means that some of the engine is eroding.
* The upper stage nozzle had big streaks on it. Suggests some asymmetric injector behavior, since
there's no gas generator exhaust injection (which causes the streaks on MVac)
* What was up with the big spiral in the exhaust? Wind shear?
* Staging looked amazing. No slosh sway like killed a Falcon 1 .
* Did they stage batteries on the upper stage? I can't think of what else they'd drop mid-burn. If you drop batteries does that make you two and a half stages?
* This launch was very very quickly after the last one, based on the historical launch program data l've compiled. Would be good to see them get two more off this year.
* How are they getting away with not painting the carbon fiber? Just limiting sun exposure as much as possible to get it dumped in the ocean before it can get enough UV damage to matter?
* They really leaned on the upper stage. Long into the second stage burn they called 3km/s, not even half way to orbit.
https://twitter.com/wikkit/status/955160356560674816
-
If you drop batteries does that make you two and a half stages?
During the callouts at launch they do go/no go for stages 1, 2 and 3.
-
Looking at this. I'm wondering at improvements that could be made.
Will Rocket Lab improve their rockets the way SpaceX has been doing. I know that there focus is on small sat launch. But as they gain experience, I would expect capacity and capabilities to creep up.
So...
1. Sub cool the propellants like Space X.
2. With two motors and two pumps, both electric, one has to ask, how difficult it would be to change to a different propellant?
Probably want to stick with KeroLox for the booster, at least initially, but how difficult would it be to change the US to Methalox?
3. Here is a crazy idea. Changing prop in the middle of the upper stage burn. So start the US on a methalox fuel, but when getting closer to orbit and gravity losses are getting small, switch over to hydralox.
Sure you lose thrust, but at that point in the burn, that doesn't matter if the ISP goes way up.
You would probably gain dry mass due to more complex tankage and extra piping though. But the pump might not care about the fuel change.
This would probably really help out if your going to GEO or further out.
-
I expect they will stabilise design and concentrate on volume production and launch. There is still likely to be follow on LV in early stages of development.
-
Pretty nifty design but there is probably limited growth margin until there are higher density battery packs. Still an amazing job on their part.
Or they switch over to advanced capacitors, especially if they jettison them like the battery packs currently.
Capacitors have abysmal energy per Kg, compared to batteries for discharges in the 1-5 minute range.
From memory, well under 2% - that is, you'd need 50kg for each 1kg of battery.
-
I expect they will stabilise design and concentrate on volume production and launch. There is still likely to be follow on LV in early stages of development.
Yup. They just got to market first - so they need to capitalize.
And remember that the only other realistic competitor is 2x as expensive.
The more they fly, the faster they can bring the next version to market.
The T/W seemed pretty high. This argues for a stretch version as some point.
For a first flight - were the engines running at full thrust?
Unlike their competitor, this vehicle uses very new technology. This means that there is very likely room for major improvements.
-
Or they switch over to advanced capacitors, especially if they jettison them like the battery packs currently.
Doubt supercapacitors make sense in this application, the specific energy is just too low to make sense even if you eject more frequently. And the higher discharge speeds are unnecessary.
A lot can be inferred from the video. There was only one battery hot swap/jettison, about 4 minutes after staging. Yet it's no problem to discharge a high power lithium battery in under a minute. They could have done a larger number of hotswap/jettison events if they had wanted to even using lithium. From this I infer it's a critical event and possible LOM if it fails, hence undesirable to do a bunch of them.
Ben Brockert: The upper stage exhaust was very sparky. That's usually only seen in solids, usually sparks in liquids means that some of the engine is eroding.
Wonder if that has anything to do with the 3D printed manufacturing.
Ben Brockert: They really leaned on the upper stage. Long into the second stage burn they called 3km/s, not even half way to orbit.
Reminds me of SpaceX, they've tended to stage low and slow too, even before they were landing. Seems like that could be a consequence of using the same engines on both stages. I also note they end up with a 9:1 ratio and even something very like the SpaceX octoweb arrangement. I doubt they copied that without doing the math, seems like that's something of a golden ratio for a TSTO LEO-optimized launcher.
One consequence of using your first stage engine on your upper stage is that it's very high thrust for an upper stage, there is far less need for the first stage to protect the upper stage from gravity losses as is the case with eg the RL-10. And the ISP of the first stage engines isn't amazing, so maybe better to do more with the vac optimized engine as soon as possible.
Unlike their competitor, this vehicle uses very new technology. This means that there is very likely room for major improvements.
One advantage of the electric cycle... you can get significant improvements just sitting around waiting for better batteries.
-
I've been thinking wether the Rutherford engine allows for a true "run to depletion" because of the electric turbopump?
-
Relativity Space also plan to use 9+1 engine configuration, but they are exSpaceX staff.
-
but they are exSpaceX staff.
You are not wrong but people put too much emphasis on that stuff. They were mostly short summer internships during their degree programs, then 1-2 years in very junior positions before they started Relativity:-
CTO
USC Bachelors degree 2010-2014
Blue Origin
Propulsion Intern (summer intern)
Dates Employed Jun 2013 – Aug 2013
Employment Duration 3 mos
SpaceX
In-Space Propulsion Intern (summer intern)
Dates Employed Jun 2014 – Sep 2014
Employment Duration 4 mos
Propulsion Development Engineer (full time)
SpaceX
Dates Employed Sep 2014 – Dec 2015
Employment Duration 1 yr 4 mos
CEO
USC Bachelors and Masters degrees 2008-2013
Turbomachinery Development (summer intern)
BLUE ORIGIN
Dates Employed May 2011 – Aug 2011
Employment Duration 4 mos
Propulsion Testing (summer intern)
BLUE ORIGIN
May 2012 – Aug 2012
Employment Duration 4 mos
Turbomachinery Development (summer intern)
BLUE ORIGIN
Dates Employed May 2013 – Aug 2013
Employment Duration 4 mos
Propulsion Development (full time)
BLUE ORIGIN
Dates Employed Jan 2014 – Dec 2015
Employment Duration 2 yrs
-
It's not nothing, but it's also a bit of a stretch to put a huge emphasis on that aspect.
Jimmy Cantrell is another one who makes his links to SpaceX seem more than it really is. He left SpaceX because after a few months "he didn't believe in it", or some such. If you think about it Jimmy is actually more like Ron Wayne, the guy who sold his Apple stock for $800...
-
It is certainly interesting that we now have two operational rockets with a 9+1 engine configuration. But I suppose it makes the most sense if you only have the budget to create one engine.
It also shows that both providers and customers are now far more accepting of clustered engine approach.
-
I expect they will stabilise design and concentrate on volume production and launch. There is still likely to be follow on LV in early stages of development.
Yup. They just got to market first - so they need to capitalize.
And remember that the only other realistic competitor is 2x as expensive.
The more they fly, the faster they can bring the next version to market.
The T/W seemed pretty high. This argues for a stretch version as some point.
For a first flight - were the engines running at full thrust?
Unlike their competitor, this vehicle uses very new technology. This means that there is very likely room for major improvements.
Who’s the competitor that’s 2x as expensive? I’m assuming either Vector or Virgin but both are similar in $/kg to RL.
-
3. Here is a crazy idea. Changing prop in the middle of the upper stage burn. So start the US on a methalox fuel, but when getting closer to orbit and gravity losses are getting small, switch over to hydralox.
Sure you lose thrust, but at that point in the burn, that doesn't matter if the ISP goes way up.
You would probably gain dry mass due to more complex tankage and extra piping though. But the pump might not care about the fuel change.
This would probably really help out if your going to GEO or further out.
Tripropellant cycles are kind of "Devil in the Details" designs. Either you add another motorpump (probably eating up all your ISP gains) for the Hydrogen, or you have to deal with trying to flush the fuel lines and pump of RP-1/Methane before switching to Hydrogen or you end up with an unknown fuel mix. Plus you need a pump that can handle the transition from Liquid Methane (or RP-1) temperatures down to liquid Hydrogen temperatures without damage, or an engine that can handle the transition from liquid/liquid phase injection & combustion to liquid/gas phase.
-
1. Sub cool the propellants like Space X.
Depends, if sub cooling is planned into the performance, or if a thrust upgrade to the engines is planned in. Basically anything within 3K of the NBP of LN2 has been within the Soa since the X33 programme. Anything lower (which SX seem to us) is going to be harder and more expensive.
2. With two motors and two pumps, both electric, one has to ask, how difficult it would be to change to a different propellant?
Probably want to stick with KeroLox for the booster, at least initially, but how difficult would it be to change the US to Methalox?
Probably not that difficult. Basically there's LH2 and everything else in terms of density and flowrate (LH2 is also the compressible liquid, completely unlike pretty much every other propellant).
3. Here is a crazy idea. Changing prop in the middle of the upper stage burn. So start the US on a methalox fuel, but when getting closer to orbit and gravity losses are getting small, switch over to hydralox.
Sure you lose thrust, but at that point in the burn, that doesn't matter if the ISP goes way up.
Massive extra complexity on the pad and the vehicle. 3 tanks, not 2, trouble with GH2 permeation into a tank structure (not sure even NASA has solved that yet)
You would probably gain dry mass due to more complex tankage and extra piping though. But the pump might not care about the fuel change.
Wrong. The pump is the big one. LH2 (even desified) is < 1/10 the density of RP1LCH4 is (IIRC) about 460K/Kg^3, less than 1/6 the density of Methane, and (unlike every other propellant) it's compressible (so raising the pressure does not in fact raise the pressure, it causes the LH2 to shrink).
Which makes LH2 pump design a PITA, and only done if you really want the performance.
Actually you missed (in principle) the simplest trick, mixture ratio shifting. For each flight stage you run rich(er) with the most dense propellant (normally the Oxidizer) which runs slightly lower Isp but lightens the stage faster, IE it improves acceleration. That lowers gravity losses. Since the rocket already has an IMS measuring when to do this would be quite easy. Then it's a question of adding an actuator (actuators?) to the LOX (fuel?) side of the engine, then gradually dial it down as you gain height to trade thrust for Isp. This could b as simple as a two position valve or fully variable driven by a stepper motor.
I don't think anyone's done a full MR shift (or at least anyone who's said so). Fully implemented a rocket could barely get off the pad ( say 1.05g acceleration) then within seconds (after maximum propellant loss has burned off the most propellant for the least gain) start to shift to fuel rich, raising Isp.
BTW the terminology is confusing. In car engines "lean burn" means low fuel. Here you start "lean" then shift to fuel rich, yet your Isp (or "rocket MPG") goes up. This sounds very counter intuitive if you have a car background.
-
Tripropellant cycles are kind of "Devil in the Details" designs. Either you add another motorpump (probably eating up all your ISP gains) for the Hydrogen, or you have to deal with trying to flush the fuel lines and pump of RP-1/Methane before switching to Hydrogen or you end up with an unknown fuel mix. Plus you need a pump that can handle the transition from Liquid Methane (or RP-1) temperatures down to liquid Hydrogen temperatures without damage, or an engine that can handle the transition from liquid/liquid phase injection & combustion to liquid/gas phase.
Unless of course you swap oxidizers, rather than fuels.
-
Tripropellant cycles are kind of "Devil in the Details" designs. Either you add another motorpump (probably eating up all your ISP gains) for the Hydrogen, or you have to deal with trying to flush the fuel lines and pump of RP-1/Methane before switching to Hydrogen or you end up with an unknown fuel mix. Plus you need a pump that can handle the transition from Liquid Methane (or RP-1) temperatures down to liquid Hydrogen temperatures without damage, or an engine that can handle the transition from liquid/liquid phase injection & combustion to liquid/gas phase.
Unless of course you swap oxidizers, rather than fuels.
What kind of oxidizer would you use instead of LOX?
-
How about hydrogen peroxide?
-
author=ZachS09 link=topic=35300.msg1775496#msg1775496 date=1516651171]
How about hydrogen peroxide?
[/quote]
Actually on that basis you would run HTP in the booster, or early flight, and LOX in the later, or just the upper stage. Basically the same idea of the RP1/LH2 shift that Von Braun did with the Saturn V.
Tripropellant cycles are kind of "Devil in the Details" designs. Either you add another motorpump (probably eating up all your ISP gains) for the Hydrogen, or you have to deal with trying to flush the fuel lines and pump of RP-1/Methane before switching to Hydrogen or you end up with an unknown fuel mix. Plus you need a pump that can handle the transition from Liquid Methane (or RP-1) temperatures down to liquid Hydrogen temperatures without damage, or an engine that can handle the transition from liquid/liquid phase injection & combustion to liquid/gas phase.
Unless of course you swap oxidizers, rather than fuels.
What kind of oxidizer would you use instead of LOX?
Air of course. :)
I was alluding to Reaction Engines SABRE engine, but merely as a way to point that it's easy to develop tunnel vision in this game, when IRL there are alternatives.
-
Is an electrically-pumped-rocket thrust limited by electric motor size of the propellant with the greatest volume(, usually the oxidizer)?
And if so would the most powerful useful electric engine occur roughly when fuel and oxidizer volumes are approximately equal, and pump-sizes roughly equal?
Would 70% alcohol/lox be a good combination?
And can a pump be twice as big if it is composed of one impeller between two motors? The motors either side of the impeller shaft.
-
All interesting ideas... Agreed that probably LH2 would be a non starter. Hadn't realized those devil details....
I like the idea of changing the mixture in mid burn... With separate electrically driven pumps, one can adjust the mixture any way you want.
So an Oxygen rich mixture would give you lots of thrust, but low ISP. Probably much easier to do oxygen rich since the only place you need to deal with hot oxygen is in the combustion chamber, and not the pump or turbo.
And later on fuel rich with methane at least would give you lots of lightweight stuff, for much higher ISP than stoichiometric mixtures.
-
I like the idea of changing the mixture in mid burn... With separate electrically driven pumps, one can adjust the mixture any way you want.
Historically this has been done by bypass valves around the turbopumps, with them staying at a pretty constant speed. Mechanical engineers like to keep large lumps of metal spinning at high speed at a constant high speed. However in principle with power electronics ramping the motor speeds up or down should be fairly simple, and "throttle response" fairly fast provided the pump response at the different speeds is mapped carefully. Again stuff that works fine at constant speed has proven problematical at other speeds.
So an Oxygen rich mixture would give you lots of thrust, but low ISP. Probably much easier to do oxygen rich since the only place you need to deal with hot oxygen is in the combustion chamber, and not the pump or turbo.
Don't go overboard on this. Engines that have done this are things like the J-2's on Saturn V & RL10 and SSME had a lot of ground tests (very flexible. Something like O/F from 4.5-6.0:1 in 0.1 unit increments).
And later on fuel rich with methane at least would give you lots of lightweight stuff, for much higher ISP than stoichiometric mixtures.
Fuel rich is SOP for all rocket engines, because the combustion products have lower molecular weight.
-
Multiple fuels? Switching fuels on the same stage in flight??? Getting rid of batteries? Why on Earth would Rocket Lab bother with any of that stuff. They designed a very nice little vehicle that seems to be able to get the job done at a very good price. Throwing a bunch of money at bizarre modifications to the vehicle really wouldn't make any sense. Can't we just be happy that someone brought a launcher to market that flies for less than 1/4 the price of any other active vehicles?
-
Pretty low funding too. Absurd valuation. :-\
-
Multiple fuels? Switching fuels on the same stage in flight??? Getting rid of batteries? Why on Earth would Rocket Lab bother with any of that stuff. They designed a very nice little vehicle that seems to be able to get the job done at a very good price. Throwing a bunch of money at bizarre modifications to the vehicle really wouldn't make any sense. Can't we just be happy that someone brought a launcher to market that flies for less than 1/4 the price of any other active vehicles?
Right. It's as people have ignored every lesson illustrated by SpaceX over the last years (simplicity being a prime one!) and defaulted back to Rube Goldberg ideas to squeeze out a few percent more performance while adding massive costs. Brilliant! ;D
-
Pretty low funding too. Absurd evaluation. :-\
Perhaps you mean ... valuation? And yes quite over the top. Most of the current crop of microlaunchers are that way.
Heh. The skys the limit ::)
-
Right. It's as people have ignored every lesson illustrated by SpaceX over the last years (simplicity being a prime one!) and defaulted back to Rube Goldberg ideas to squeeze out a few percent more performance while adding massive costs. Brilliant! ;D
Some of the lessons may not quite be applicable.
Catching a one ton S1 in the air may look rather more tractable than catching a 20 ton one.
The list of aircraft that can catch F9S1 class loads is not quite the empty set perhaps, but it's getting perilously close, and is in all cases at the limits.
Of course, this rather depends how automated their production line is - the raw materials in such a stage are almost worthless compared to launch costs, and if they've got it tuned to the point that it's mostly automated, the point in recovery may be almost null.
<sillyhat>
Flyback 27 Rutherford stage 0!
</sillyhat>
-
Multiple fuels? Switching fuels on the same stage in flight??? Getting rid of batteries? Why on Earth would Rocket Lab bother with any of that stuff. They designed a very nice little vehicle that seems to be able to get the job done at a very good price. Throwing a bunch of money at bizarre modifications to the vehicle really wouldn't make any sense. Can't we just be happy that someone brought a launcher to market that flies for less than 1/4 the price of any other active vehicles?
Right. It's as people have ignored every lesson illustrated by SpaceX over the last years (simplicity being a prime one!) and defaulted back to Rube Goldberg ideas to squeeze out a few percent more performance while adding massive costs. Brilliant! ;D
That's why Vector will get their fair share of the market in my opinion. Rockets don't get much simpler than what they're planning.
I honestly think Vector shouldn't be underestimated. They're doing things differently. And they might generate their own demand across several "Cantrell" ventures.
Jim Cantrell was also responsible for due diligence for Rocketlabs biggest investors.
ICeye just sent a 65kg radar satellite into orbit on the most recent PSLV launch, which seems to work exactly as planned.
-
StillTesting launch successfully demonstrated monopropellant kick stage capable of multiple restarts:
http://spacenews.com/rocket-lab-launch-also-tested-new-kick-stage/
-
StillTesting launch successfully demonstrated monopropellant kick stage capable of multiple restarts:
http://spacenews.com/rocket-lab-launch-also-tested-new-kick-stage/
"Green monopropellant". Interesting. Any clues anywhere? Hydroxylammonium nitrate? Is NOFBX "green"?
-
StillTesting launch successfully demonstrated monopropellant kick stage capable of multiple restarts:
http://spacenews.com/rocket-lab-launch-also-tested-new-kick-stage/
"Green monopropellant". Interesting. Any clues anywhere? Hydroxylammonium nitrate? Is NOFBX "green"?
Given the relatively short mission duration peroxide would work fine.
-
"First Phase of DARPA Contract Complete
January 2011
Rocket Lab successfully concluded the first phase of their DARPA contract. The research was focused on developing new novel high density mono propellants that have the potential to offer significant advantages over the current state of the art. The research concluded with a series of fully instrumented static test fires validating the propulsion system for further development."
Rocket Lab Awarded Research Contract from DARPA and ONR
September 2011
Following the successful completion of a phase 1 research contract with ONR and DARPA, Rocket Lab has signed a follow on contract for phase 2 of the High Density Propellant Research Program. The new propulsion system offers significant benefits in terms of performance and safety. The density performance is comparable to conventional high performance solid propellants but with the controllability of liquid propellants being throttleable and re-startable.
VLM Full Scale Motor Test Fires
August 2012
Rocket Lab recently achieved a major milestone for its high density monopropellant (VLM) research by the successful full scale test fire of a motor which is scheduled to fly later this year. The research, supported by DARPA and ONR, aims to demonstrate the performance, controllability and safely of the new propulsion system over current state of the art.
Thixotrope
One of the key aspects of the propellant is that it is a thixotrope. It is a pseudo solid while static in the storage vessel however once some force or shear is applied to the propellant fluid it will thin rapidly. This shear thinning enables the propellant to be injected combustion chamber creating optimum combustion and full liquid controllability."
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/08/01/rocket-labs-history/
-
StillTesting launch successfully demonstrated monopropellant kick stage capable of multiple restarts:
http://spacenews.com/rocket-lab-launch-also-tested-new-kick-stage/
"Green monopropellant". Interesting. Any clues anywhere? Hydroxylammonium nitrate? Is NOFBX "green"?
commenters on the linked article... I've no idea if they know what they are talking about or not though:
Michael Halpern • 2 hours ago
Green monopropellant... Don't think it's cold gas, hydrogen peroxide?
Randy Chung • 2 hours ago
hydroxylammonium nitrate (HAN), also known as AF-M315E. It is much safer than hydrazine.
Andy • 13 minutes ago
I wasn't aware that anyone was flying it yet. If I remember right, one of the drawbacks is that it requires a heated catalyst in order to be able to use it, so it takes a certain amount of time to warm up the heaters before you fire it. Not an issue for an application like this but it can't be used if you need a rapid response or have a limited power budget for the heaters. It's supposed to fly on STP-2 that Falcon Heavy should launch later this year if the test launch is successful.
-
Some of the lessons may not quite be applicable.
Catching a one ton S1 in the air may look rather more tractable than catching a 20 ton one.
The list of aircraft that can catch F9S1 class loads is not quite the empty set perhaps, but it's getting perilously close, and is in all cases at the limits.
Of course, this rather depends how automated their production line is - the raw materials in such a stage are almost worthless compared to launch costs, and if they've got it tuned to the point that it's mostly automated, the point in recovery may be almost null.
<sillyhat>
Flyback 27 Rutherford stage 0!
</sillyhat>
Only by space launch standards.
And reuse is valuable for improving reliability and knowing where you can relax margins, or where they are inadequate, because you've actually seen the damage caused.
-
Rocket Lab launch is vote of confidence in small-rocket startups
LA Times Article in the Business Section:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-rocket-lab-launch-20180122-story.html
-
"Green monopropellant". Interesting. Any clues anywhere? Hydroxylammonium nitrate? Is NOFBX "green"?
LMP-103S a blend based on Ammonium dinitramide as it's main ingridient.
(https://i.imgur.com/N0IS4HN.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/j9usCd8.png)
Has been flown the ESA PRISMA ((Prototype Research Instruments and Space Mission technology Advancement)
https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/p/prisma-prototype
Edit:I want to clarify that I present that as one possible option, not that I claim to know what RocketLab uses.
-
StillTesting launch successfully demonstrated monopropellant kick stage capable of multiple restarts:
http://spacenews.com/rocket-lab-launch-also-tested-new-kick-stage/
I thought Electron's second stage could restart. I guess not? I notice now their website doesn't actually mention restarts.
-
StillTesting launch successfully demonstrated monopropellant kick stage capable of multiple restarts:
http://spacenews.com/rocket-lab-launch-also-tested-new-kick-stage/
"Green monopropellant". Interesting. Any clues anywhere? Hydroxylammonium nitrate? Is NOFBX "green"?
commenters on the linked article... I've no idea if they know what they are talking about or not though:
Michael Halpern • 2 hours ago
Green monopropellant... Don't think it's cold gas, hydrogen peroxide?
Randy Chung • 2 hours ago
hydroxylammonium nitrate (HAN), also known as AF-M315E. It is much safer than hydrazine.
Andy • 13 minutes ago
I wasn't aware that anyone was flying it yet. If I remember right, one of the drawbacks is that it requires a heated catalyst in order to be able to use it, so it takes a certain amount of time to warm up the heaters before you fire it. Not an issue for an application like this but it can't be used if you need a rapid response or have a limited power budget for the heaters. It's supposed to fly on STP-2 that Falcon Heavy should launch later this year if the test launch is successful.
Randy Chung is the CEO of SpaceFab so I assume he’s fairly knowledgeable.
http://www.spacefab.us/about.html
-
I thought Electron's second stage could restart. I guess not? I notice now their website doesn't actually mention restarts.
Probably not yet.
Please note that using the kind of fabrication used, they might not be able to restart any engine, or only in certain circumstances.
(We have yet to see a launch with a restart yet. Wondered if the earlier attempt for this launch that aborted last year required new ones.)
And even if you have a ground restartable engine, getting an restart in flight US is a major accomplishment.
It's the kind of thing you develop after you have a vehicle that can make orbit, because it opens up more versatility, more elaborate missions you can bid on.
A monoprop kick stage could likely support multiple restarts cheaply. A lot easier/cheaper ... less risky. Exactly what you'd want if you want to push quickly a lot of missions following inaugural flight.
As to the Chung mention of hydroxylammonium nitrate (HAN)/AF-M315E - likely why you'd not announce it.
-
Randy Chung is the CEO of SpaceFab so I assume he’s fairly knowledgeable.
http://www.spacefab.us/about.html
He says in a later post "I must admit that I am not sure, it's just a guess.".
I think this will be very difficult to constrain just by guessing, especially given the short lifetime of a kick stage. You could probably make a case for HTP, N2O, N2O fuel blend, HAN, and probably others. Entirely possible they prioritized time to market and development cost over performance and HTP was the best choice to throw something together quickly.
-
As to the Chung mention of hydroxylammonium nitrate (HAN)/AF-M315E - likely why you'd not announce it.
Would you be able to elaborate on why the choice of HAN would cause them not to announce it?
-
Or, you know, it's the Viscous Liquid Monopropellants they developed under DARPA contract.
I mean, ya think?
-
Or, you know, it's the Viscous Liquid Monopropellants they developed under DARPA contract.
I'm changing my vote to this. Cheers for pointing that out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gB8LEHwfXPc
Sounds like it's chemically similar to solids but with granules suspended in a liquid.
https://www.google.com/patents/US20120234196
This is really impressive, these folks are the real deal. Three stages, likely all with novel propulsion technology. Not something you expect to see in 2018.
-
Point of comment above on not disclosing is likely the propellant isn't an accepted one of any kind.
One advantage of being your own provider in a country uncritical of such in a LV.
Others might not be so amused at it.
-
Randy Chung is the CEO of SpaceFab so I assume he’s fairly knowledgeable.
http://www.spacefab.us/about.html
He says in a later post "I must admit that I am not sure, it's just a guess.".
I think this will be very difficult to constrain just by guessing, especially given the short lifetime of a kick stage. You could probably make a case for HTP, N2O, N2O fuel blend, HAN, and probably others. Entirely possible they prioritized time to market and development cost over performance and HTP was the best choice to throw something together quickly.
For quick reference, VLM patent linked upthread by ArbitraryConstant lists the following oxidizers:
11. The VLM mixture of claim 6 wherein the primary oxidant component(s) is/are selected from oxidisers including ammonium perchlorate, ammonium nitrate, hydroxylamine nitrate, ammonium dinitramide, hydrazinium nitroformate and hydrogen peroxide.
-
Point of comment above on not disclosing is likely the propellant isn't an accepted one of any kind.
One advantage of being your own provider in a country uncritical of such in a LV.
Others might not be so amused at it.
So what's RL's plan? Just fly until it has enough flight history to overcome concerns?
Was ruminating on it today and it seems like it also represents a competitive "moat" against the other smallsat launchers under development. The investments necessary to provide similar services are probably significant hence it seems like most startups would defer dealing with it if possible, but if RL broadcasts exactly what they've done, others might decide to look into it sooner.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Propellant_Infusion_Mission seems somewhat relevant.
-
Using the kick stage lowers the cost of developing and testing upper stage in-space restart. Lets them address a larger portion of the market's needs while doing testing on-orbit. Saves on expensive ground vacuum testing and simultaneously provides better test environment. And since they had already developed their monopropellant under DARPA contract, it shouldn't have cost them all that much. Especially if they didn't have to develop much in the way of new avionics.
-
While I imagine a rocket engine using electric turbopumps such as the Rutherford would be easier to restart than one utilizing a gas generator, it's still probably simpler and more accurate to circularize an orbit with a low thrust unit instead of a relatively large 2nd stage engine with limited throttleability.
I'd love to know what they're using as a monoprop.
-
While I imagine a rocket engine using electric turbopumps such as the Rutherford would be easier to restart than one utilizing a gas generator, it's still probably simpler and more accurate to circularize an orbit with a low thrust unit instead of a relatively large 2nd stage engine with limited throttleability.
I'd love to know what they're using as a monoprop.
99.9% confident they would use the VLM they developed with DARPA funding.
-
Rocket Lab PR in overdrive:-
http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-012418a-rocket-lab-humanity-star-satellite.html
Clever.
-
Entirely possible they prioritized time to market and development cost over performance ...
Who else do we know like that? :)
(I love these guys. They launched a disco ball to orbit because they want people to look up.)
-
Entirely possible they prioritized time to market and development cost over performance ...
Who else do we know like that? :)
(I love these guys. They launched a disco ball to orbit because they want people to look up.)
Seems like Humanity Star was also flown on It's A Test. I was wondering what that shiny object was during launch. See at 1:52 of video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nveOh0yqXyg
-
Good catch! That makes a lot more sense in retrospect.
-
but they are exSpaceX staff.
You are not wrong but people put too much emphasis on that stuff. They were mostly short summer internships during their degree programs, then 1-2 years in very junior positions before they started Relativity:-
CTO
USC Bachelors degree 2010-2014
Blue Origin
Propulsion Intern (summer intern)
Dates Employed Jun 2013 – Aug 2013
Employment Duration 3 mos
SpaceX
In-Space Propulsion Intern (summer intern)
Dates Employed Jun 2014 – Sep 2014
Employment Duration 4 mos
Propulsion Development Engineer (full time)
SpaceX
Dates Employed Sep 2014 – Dec 2015
Employment Duration 1 yr 4 mos
CEO
USC Bachelors and Masters degrees 2008-2013
Turbomachinery Development (summer intern)
BLUE ORIGIN
Dates Employed May 2011 – Aug 2011
Employment Duration 4 mos
Propulsion Testing (summer intern)
BLUE ORIGIN
May 2012 – Aug 2012
Employment Duration 4 mos
Turbomachinery Development (summer intern)
BLUE ORIGIN
Dates Employed May 2013 – Aug 2013
Employment Duration 4 mos
Propulsion Development (full time)
BLUE ORIGIN
Dates Employed Jan 2014 – Dec 2015
Employment Duration 2 yrs
-
It's not nothing, but it's also a bit of a stretch to put a huge emphasis on that aspect.
Jimmy Cantrell is another one who makes his links to SpaceX seem more than it really is. He left SpaceX because after a few months "he didn't believe in it", or some such. If you think about it Jimmy is actually more like Ron Wayne, the guy who sold his Apple stock for $800...
Tim left out his internship at Masten Space Systems. He was one of the two interns the summer I left to start Altius.
~Jon
-
Entirely possible they prioritized time to market and development cost over performance ...
Who else do we know like that? :)
(I love these guys. They launched a disco ball to orbit because they want people to look up.)
Seems like Humanity Star was also flown on It's A Test. I was wondering what that shiny object was during launch. See at 1:52 of video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nveOh0yqXyg
Good find - i thought at the time this was part of the "It's A Test" dummy payload on the upper stage, but now that we know about the appearance of Humanity Star, it is quite clear, that an Humanity Star was also on the first launch.
I am curious, if there was also a Kick Stage on the first launch.
-
Using the kick stage lowers the cost of developing and testing upper stage in-space restart. Lets them address a larger portion of the market's needs while doing testing on-orbit. Saves on expensive ground vacuum testing and simultaneously provides better test environment. And since they had already developed their monopropellant under DARPA contract, it shouldn't have cost them all that much. Especially if they didn't have to develop much in the way of new avionics.
They tested restart AFTER separation of main commercial payload?
-
Using the kick stage lowers the cost of developing and testing upper stage in-space restart. Lets them address a larger portion of the market's needs while doing testing on-orbit. Saves on expensive ground vacuum testing and simultaneously provides better test environment. And since they had already developed their monopropellant under DARPA contract, it shouldn't have cost them all that much. Especially if they didn't have to develop much in the way of new avionics.
They tested restart AFTER separation of main commercial payload?
That's pure speculation. I have no definitive information about this in relation to actual disclosed activities on this mission. More just a logical surmise. In order to support the flight rate RocketLab hopes to achieve, it will help to be able deliver payloads to the widest possible range of potential orbits. With the expanding nature of the current small sat market, who knows what payloads are going to be looking for a ride. Having upper stage restart capability is useful in that respect. It also could be useful for other ride-sharing launches where different payloads are going to different orbits. So, from the starting point of believing that they will want to eventually add this capability to their operations toolbox, my surmise is that testing post payload separation would be a good time to start moving themselves toward it. Could have been as small scale as attempting to settle props and see what happens to their fluid flows after coast, etc. Even without any intention of actually relighting the engine, there's lots they can learn about their vehicle so long as it's still alive. /speculation
-
Sounds like it's chemically similar to solids but with granules suspended in a liquid.
This is really impressive, these folks are the real deal. Three stages, likely all with novel propulsion technology. Not something you expect to see in 2018.
No it's liquid (probably water, could be something else) with a lot of the propellant dissolved into it. The propellant (or maybe some additives on top) make it "thixotropic." IOW it's like non drip paint or "super multigrade" motor oils. Like treacle at rest, or moving slowly, but thinning out as its put through a pump. However it's a single phase liquid, not a two phase mixture.
-
However it's a single phase liquid, not a two phase mixture.
While the bulk of the propellant can be liquid phase (up to 80% carrier fluid) the patent states that solid particles (indissoluble powdered oxidizers or "thermic" ingredients, maybe powdered aluminum) are suspended in the liquid phase, which would make a two-phase mixture. And the patent covers mixtures ranging up to 95% solids.
CLAIMS(26)
1. A viscous liquid monopropellant (VLM) mixture comprising:
a. a carrier-fluid present in an amount ranging from about 5% to 80% by mass, and
b.a solid fraction comprising from about 20% to 95% by mass dispersed, suspended or emulsified in the carrier-fluid
These monopropellants are comprised of a variety of liquid and solid components, mixed together to form a homogenous fluid, although heterogeneous in composition. The solid constituents are retained within the liquid phase by dispersion, suspension, bonding or chemical emulsification techniques, so as when a motive force is applied to the propellant, all the constituents are also transported, and held in correct proportion whilst doing so.
https://www.google.com/patents/US20120234196
So technically, it's a two-phase mixture, like an emulsion.
-
So technically, it's a two-phase mixture, like an emulsion.
Yeah, I'm basically picturing the propulsion properties of a throttleable, restartable solid propellant and the bulk physical properties of mayonnaise. My intuition is the viscosity makes it probably not that useful for station keeping, which is in the millinewtons or even lower, but for >newton thrust it's one of the best monopropellants I've ever heard of. One of the Youtube videos Rocket Lab has of a VLM test claims 300 ISP.
Also for an LOL from the patent:
The propellant feed rate is preferably high enough that it exceeds the burn rate of the propellant.
Yes... that would be preferable.
-
Whoops...
Astronomers really hate that bright disco ball satellite secretly launched to space
https://mashable.com/2018/01/25/rocket-lab-humanity-star-bad-for-astronomy/#uGoB.IZekkqE (https://mashable.com/2018/01/25/rocket-lab-humanity-star-bad-for-astronomy/#uGoB.IZekkqE)
'Space graffiti': astronomers angry over launch of fake star into sky
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/26/space-graffiti-astronomers-angry-over-launch-of-fake-star-into-sky (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/26/space-graffiti-astronomers-angry-over-launch-of-fake-star-into-sky)
Astronomers Are Annoyed at a New Zealand Company That Launched a Disco Ball Into Orbit
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/kznvzw/rocket-lab-humanity-star-astronomers-space-junk (https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/kznvzw/rocket-lab-humanity-star-astronomers-space-junk)
-
Whoops...
Astronomers really hate that bright disco ball satellite secretly launched to space
https://mashable.com/2018/01/25/rocket-lab-humanity-star-bad-for-astronomy/#uGoB.IZekkqE (https://mashable.com/2018/01/25/rocket-lab-humanity-star-bad-for-astronomy/#uGoB.IZekkqE)
'Space graffiti': astronomers angry over launch of fake star into sky
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/26/space-graffiti-astronomers-angry-over-launch-of-fake-star-into-sky (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/26/space-graffiti-astronomers-angry-over-launch-of-fake-star-into-sky)
Astronomers Are Annoyed at a New Zealand Company That Launched a Disco Ball Into Orbit
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/kznvzw/rocket-lab-humanity-star-astronomers-space-junk (https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/kznvzw/rocket-lab-humanity-star-astronomers-space-junk)
Looks like just whining for the sake of it.
-
So I have finally registered an account here ;D
I have watched last week's launch video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lwi44sPAQDE) (http://(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lwi44sPAQDE)) again in a bit more detail and have come up with some conclusions/questions, maybe some of you have had the same thoughts?
* At 20:55, the ejection of the prominent battery pack can clearly be seen, but a fraction of a second later, a second pack can be seen at the top of the frame, making me think they ejected two packs at once.
* To go back a bit: At 16:53, the first stage is separated. There seems to be an immediate incidence correction around 17:00 when the second stage engine starts up. Does anyone know why the attitude correction looks so large?
* I have also been wondering about why they paint their launcher black (or leave the carbon fibre surface as is). From my experience, usually white paint is used to minimise solar irradiance. Surely they must have problems with aeroheating? At 17:28, the outside of one fairing half can be seen, and it looks positively glossy, so no apparent heat "damage". If that is just a "clear-coated" carbon fibre surface, how do they get away without using any kind of thermal protection?
-
Does anyone know why the attitude correction looks so large?
Prior callout was for an AOA (Angle of Attack) minimisation, i.e. turning the rocket to point directly along the line of flight, just before staging. Presumably to minimise the aerodynamic forces applying sideways onto the stages during staging, to prevent the nozzle clipping the inner edge of the interstage due to windshear. The correction after staging would be to point the second stage back towards the desired angle it was travelling at before the minimisation manoeuvre.
-
Does anyone know why the attitude correction looks so large?
Prior callout was for an AOA (Angle of Attack) minimisation, i.e. turning the rocket to point directly along the line of flight, just before staging. Presumably to minimise the aerodynamic forces applying sideways onto the stages during staging, to prevent the nozzle clipping the inner edge of the interstage due to windshear. The correction after staging would be to point the second stage back towards the desired angle it was travelling at before the minimisation manoeuvre.
Ah, thanks -- that's what I get for watching on mute!
-
I'm under the impression that RL de-orbits the 2nd stage, so restart of the stage's Rutherford seems likely.
-
* At 20:55, the ejection of the prominent battery pack can clearly be seen, but a fraction of a second later, a second pack can be seen at the top of the frame, making me think they ejected two packs at once.
First, welcome to the forum.
Symmetric placement for balance makes sense.
Does anyone know why the attitude correction looks so large?
In addition to what edzieba mentioned, the different thrust-weight ratio after staging may change the desired thrust angle depending on how they want to handle gravity losses.
* I have also been wondering about why they paint their launcher black (or leave the carbon fibre surface as is). From my experience, usually white paint is used to minimise solar irradiance. Surely they must have problems with aeroheating? At 17:28, the outside of one fairing half can be seen, and it looks positively glossy, so no apparent heat "damage". If that is just a "clear-coated" carbon fibre surface, how do they get away without using any kind of thermal protection?
Painting would add weight, so if it is not needed for protection, it makes sense to skip. Also, for any heating other than incident radiation, black is the best color to deal with it because of higher emissivity.
Aeroheating shouldn't be a major concern during launch. You don't want to fight high drag during launch, so launch trajectories try to get above as much of the atmosphere as possible as before velocity gets to a point where drag is significant. Certainly not enough to cause scorching or require thermal protection.
-
* I have also been wondering about why they paint their launcher black (or leave the carbon fibre surface as is). From my experience, usually white paint is used to minimise solar irradiance. Surely they must have problems with aeroheating? At 17:28, the outside of one fairing half can be seen, and it looks positively glossy, so no apparent heat "damage". If that is just a "clear-coated" carbon fibre surface, how do they get away without using any kind of thermal protection?
You do want to have your LOX tank white to decrease boil off before launch... but there is a convenient white layer of ice that forms anyway, so apparently this isn't a major issue. Adding paint would only reduce the payload capacity.
-
First, welcome to the forum.
Thanks! :)
* I have also been wondering about why they paint their launcher black (or leave the carbon fibre surface as is). From my experience, usually white paint is used to minimise solar irradiance. Surely they must have problems with aeroheating? At 17:28, the outside of one fairing half can be seen, and it looks positively glossy, so no apparent heat "damage". If that is just a "clear-coated" carbon fibre surface, how do they get away without using any kind of thermal protection?
Painting would add weight, so if it is not needed for protection, it makes sense to skip. Also, for any heating other than incident radiation, black is the best color to deal with it because of higher emissivity.
Aeroheating shouldn't be a major concern during launch. You don't want to fight high drag during launch, so launch trajectories try to get above as much of the atmosphere as possible as before velocity gets to a point where drag is significant. Certainly not enough to cause scorching or require thermal protection.
Hmm, I am not convinced. OK, a black body is the ideal emitter and if the aeroheating is expected to be higher than the solar irradiance, it makes sense. However, I have seen bigger launchers use thermal protection on their fairings. See for example here (https://www.compositesworld.com/articles/size-unlimited-ooa-composite-process-enables-next-gen-launch-system-): In "Step 8" of the slide show you can see some light brownish thermal protection applied on the fairing. Surely this would not be done if it would not be required?
-
Hmm, I am not convinced. OK, a black body is the ideal emitter and if the aeroheating is expected to be higher than the solar irradiance, it makes sense. However, I have seen bigger launchers use thermal protection on their fairings. See for example here (https://www.compositesworld.com/articles/size-unlimited-ooa-composite-process-enables-next-gen-launch-system-): In "Step 8" of the slide show you can see some light brownish thermal protection applied on the fairing. Surely this would not be done if it would not be required?
I think the thermal management of a carbon composite tank is easier than other common tank materials, like aluminum-lithium. The thermal conductivity of Al:Li is relatively high, meaning heat can leave the system readily. Carbon fiber composite should have a thermal conductivity at least an order of magnitude less. Essentially the carbon fiber tanks are their own insulation. No need for an exterior coating. Found this link with some comparative thermal properties.
https://www.christinedemerchant.com/carbon_characteristics_heat_conductivity.html
-
I guess there's also the case that the payloads for Electron aren't as delicate as some of the bigger payloads that have special environmental requirements.
Also, some of those payloads would sit on the pad for quite some time, while Rocketlab could always go back to horizontal and into the hangar if there's a delay.
-
On the point about the thermal control of the payload, Electron doesn't seem to have aircon going to the fairing. Anyone know if this is the case?
-
On the point about the thermal control of the payload, Electron doesn't seem to have aircon going to the fairing. Anyone know if this is the case?
Rocketlab's Electron User guide ( see page 14) says the fairing can have environmental controls, although presence of this feature seems to be payload specific.
-
I'm under the impression that RL de-orbits the 2nd stage, so restart of the stage's Rutherford seems likely.
That would make sense if they did circularization at 500 km with the second stage, but it looked like they did that with the kick stage, leaving the second stage in an elliptical orbit with 300 km perigee. That seems short lived enough that they don't strictly need deorbit.
-
Mods: Is it time to create a Rocketlab directory/section? I'm seeing multiple threads here about Rocketlab, Electron, Electron launches.
Rocketlab says it is moving into operational posture. That's another reason. Presumably, they will have a lot of launches in coming months.
-
So I have finally registered an account here ;D
* I have also been wondering about why they paint their launcher black (or leave the carbon fibre surface as is). From my experience, usually white paint is used to minimise solar irradiance. Surely they must have problems with aeroheating? At 17:28, the outside of one fairing half can be seen, and it looks positively glossy, so no apparent heat "damage". If that is just a "clear-coated" carbon fibre surface, how do they get away without using any kind of thermal protection?
Welcome to the forum.
Black sounds an odd choice but as others have pointed out it's as good an emitter as it is an absorber, and since one stage does not make orbit and the other does not last long that's not two big an issue. Something like it was asked about how much LOX tank insulation was needed on F9 or the old Steel tank Atlases. Aluminaum alloy is 10x as conductive as Steel, and I think CRFT is less conductive than Steel. A layer of paint, combined with the water vapour frozen out of the air, was enough to cut boil off to an acceptable level.
[EDIT. Oops.
Turns out according to the web site listed earlier that raw carbon fiber can be 2.38x higher in thermal conductivity. However carbon fiber composite (using Epoxy resin) is 0.01x that level, which works out to be 26x lower than Aluminum alloy. IE 1/26 Aluminum. ]
-
Mods: Is it time to create a Rocketlab directory/section? I'm seeing multiple threads here about Rocketlab, Electron, Electron launches.
Rocketlab says it is moving into operational posture. That's another reason. Presumably, they will have a lot of launches in coming months.
I was actually thinking of creating a thread on the kick stage but thought it would be excessive.
-
Mods: Is it time to create a Rocketlab directory/section? I'm seeing multiple threads here about Rocketlab, Electron, Electron launches.
Rocketlab says it is moving into operational posture. That's another reason. Presumably, they will have a lot of launches in coming months.
I was actually thinking of creating a thread on the kick stage but thought it would be excessive.
I don't think it is excessive. It's an interesting piece of hardware with some interesting history (green monoprop) and technology.
-
Seems like Humanity Star was also flown on It's A Test. I was wondering what that shiny object was during launch. See at 1:52 of video.
Huh. Never noticed this before. Wouldn't have understood it at the time.
https://www.faa.gov/data_research/commercial_space_data/launches/?type=Licensed
https://www.faa.gov/data_research/commercial_space_data/launch_details/?id=2119
-
I was actually thinking of creating a thread on the kick stage but thought it would be excessive.
I think the kick stage is a very interesting development. It raises all kinds of questions about the performance of the electric cycle and the core capability of Electron's first two stages.
(http://images.spaceref.com/news/2018/DUP-m9MU0AAIldK.jpg)
-
I think the kick stage is a very interesting development. It raises all kinds of questions about the performance of the electric cycle and the core capability of Electron's first two stages.
What questions? Pegasus has HAPS, which is basically the same thing.
-
I think the kick stage is a very interesting development. It raises all kinds of questions about the performance of the electric cycle and the core capability of Electron's first two stages.
What questions? Pegasus has HAPS, which is basically the same thing.
HAPS is a fairly conventional pressure fed hypergolic stage. Which means it has all the issues around handling very toxic hypergols. This stuff seems to capable of an Isp at 300secs, be a mono-propellant and have unusually mass properties, more like a solid
Which would make it quite interesting in its own right.
-
I think the kick stage is a very interesting development. It raises all kinds of questions about the performance of the electric cycle and the core capability of Electron's first two stages.
What questions? Pegasus has HAPS, which is basically the same thing.
HAPS is a fairly conventional pressure fed hypergolic stage. Which means it has all the issues around handling very toxic hypergols. This stuff seems to capable of an Isp at 300secs, be a mono-propellant and have unusually mass properties, more like a solid
Which would make it quite interesting in its own right.
Is the new monopropellant interesting? Yes.
Does a small pressure-fed monopropellant kick stage atop a small 2-stage launcher "raise all kinds of questions" about capability of the 2 stages beneath it? No more so than HAPS raises questions about the capability of the Pegasus solid stages.
(And BTW, HAPS is monoprop hydrazine, not hypergolic. But yes, still toxic.)
-
I was actually thinking of creating a thread on the kick stage but thought it would be excessive.
I think the kick stage is a very interesting development. It raises all kinds of questions about the performance of the electric cycle and the core capability of Electron's first two stages.
(http://images.spaceref.com/news/2018/DUP-m9MU0AAIldK.jpg)
To me this acts like a little tug .. great mass saver.. "simple" solution to "restart 2nd stage" issues to circularize/trim final orbit
-
I was actually thinking of creating a thread on the kick stage but thought it would be excessive.
I think the kick stage is a very interesting development. It raises all kinds of questions about the performance of the electric cycle and the core capability of Electron's first two stages.
To me this acts like a little tug .. great mass saver.. "simple" solution to "restart 2nd stage" issues to circularize/trim final orbit
Yes, just like Pegasus HAPS. The concept is not new.
-
I would be astonished if this worked at 300 sec ISP. It is a monopropellant. I would expect low 200s.
The GPIM monoprop at 25N got 250, https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/GreenPropellantInfusionMissionProject_v2.pdf
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35300.msg1776181#msg1776181 upthread gives another similar propellant 255 at 22N.
At 250N, the second gives 285s.
Low 200s may be overly pessimistic.
300s - probably not.
-
Mods: Is it time to create a Rocketlab directory/section? I'm seeing multiple threads here about Rocketlab, Electron, Electron launches.
Rocketlab says it is moving into operational posture. That's another reason. Presumably, they will have a lot of launches in coming months.
It's being considered. This is a good problem to have.... but as companies proliferate there is also the danger of having so many sections that it is hard to navigate...
-
Want is DV between 300x500km and 500x500km?
-
Mods: Is it time to create a Rocketlab directory/section? I'm seeing multiple threads here about Rocketlab, Electron, Electron launches.
Rocketlab says it is moving into operational posture. That's another reason. Presumably, they will have a lot of launches in coming months.
It's being considered. This is a good problem to have.... but as companies proliferate there is also the danger of having so many sections that it is hard to navigate...
I think having a "Smallsat launcher" section would be good, it can have Rocket Lab, Vector, and Virgin categories, perhaps each company can get a "General" and "Live missions" subcategory in the smallsat section too.
-
Want is DV between 300x500km and 500x500km?
Roughly 55m/s by my calculations.
-
Want is DV between 300x500km and 500x500km?
56.452 m/s.
For a circular 500x500km orbit, orbital speed is sqrt(GM/R), where M is earth's mass in kg, R is earth's radius plus orbital altitude in meters, and G is the gravitational constant. Plugging those numbers in gives us a speed of 7616.328 m/s. That is our target speed.
For an elliptical 300x500km orbit, the easiest way to find speed at a given altitude is the vis-viva equation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vis-viva_equation), which says orbital speed is sqrt(GM*(2/R-1/a)), where a is the semi-major axis of the orbit in meters. The semi-major axis is just the average of apogee and perigee (including earth's radius), which in this case is 6771km. Plugging all the numbers in (using our radius at apogee) gives a speed at apogee of 7559.876 m/s.
To find the required dV, we subtract our initial velocity from our final velocity (since both occur in the same place in space). 7616.328-7559.876=56.452 m/s of dV required.
Plugging this back into the rocket equation, we can tell what the minimum fuel mass fraction could be. If Curie has an Isp of 300, minimum fuel mass fraction is just under 2%. For a pessimistic Isp of 200, minimum fuel mass fraction is just under 3%. Of course, this is assuming the kick stage expended all of its fuel for this circularization maneuver, which it almost certainly didn't - hence "minimum" fuel mass fraction. Still, it shows why those tanks can be so dang small, especially if the density of the propellant is quite high.
-
Mods: Is it time to create a Rocketlab directory/section? I'm seeing multiple threads here about Rocketlab, Electron, Electron launches.
Rocketlab says it is moving into operational posture. That's another reason. Presumably, they will have a lot of launches in coming months.
It's being considered. This is a good problem to have.... but as companies proliferate there is also the danger of having so many sections that it is hard to navigate...
I think having a "Smallsat launcher" section would be good, it can have Rocket Lab, Vector, and Virgin categories, perhaps each company can get a "General" and "Live missions" subcategory in the smallsat section too.
Perhaps move companies to a new section when they actually start commercial launches? Leave the wannabes and test phase companies here?
-
I was actually thinking of creating a thread on the kick stage but thought it would be excessive.
I think the kick stage is a very interesting development. It raises all kinds of questions about the performance of the electric cycle and the core capability of Electron's first two stages.
(http://images.spaceref.com/news/2018/DUP-m9MU0AAIldK.jpg)
White structure instead of black CFRP? Painted white?
-
Mods: Is it time to create a Rocketlab directory/section? I'm seeing multiple threads here about Rocketlab, Electron, Electron launches.
Rocketlab says it is moving into operational posture. That's another reason. Presumably, they will have a lot of launches in coming months.
It's being considered. This is a good problem to have.... but as companies proliferate there is also the danger of having so many sections that it is hard to navigate...
I think having a "Smallsat launcher" section would be good, it can have Rocket Lab, Vector, and Virgin categories, perhaps each company can get a "General" and "Live missions" subcategory in the smallsat section too.
I agree. Something dedicated to the category would be nice. Maybe a small sat manufacturer subsection too?
-
I just noticed, there's a LOT of empty space at the bottom of the Curie stage. Could they add more tanks, and perhaps, more engines? Maybe even use it for the inital push to orbit (Like the Satrurn V's 3-stage design) for very heavy payloads?
-
I just noticed, there's a LOT of empty space at the bottom of the Curie stage. Could they add more tanks, and perhaps, more engines? Maybe even use it for the inital push to orbit (Like the Satrurn V's 3-stage design) for very heavy payloads?
VEB (Vehicle Equipment Bay) modified to a bonus stage? Interesting.
Possible more/bigger tanks for translunar injection of lunar X prize mission? Or this is too risky on development schedule / reliability?
-
This stuff seems to capable of an Isp at 300secs, be a mono-propellant and have unusually mass properties, more like a solid
I would be astonished if this worked at 300 sec ISP. It is a monopropellant. I would expect low 200s.
Rocket Lab posted a YouTube video claiming 300 sec vac ISP in the description.
Solids are also monopropellants and they are capable of 300 secs vac ISP at the high end. VLM seems to have a chemistry similar to solids from the patent. So it's not obviously out of the question.
https://youtu.be/wV55OKP6ld4
-
Possible more/bigger tanks for translunar injection of lunar X prize mission? Or this is too risky on development schedule / reliability?
Well the clock ran out on the lunar X Prize, but apart from that little wrinkle I think VLM would work well for a whole range of small scale BEO architectures, including lander and return stage. The thrust likely wouldn't be enough for a lander with the kick stage as built but Rocket Lab demoed VLM in a rocket fired on Earth so the thrust is clearly scalable.
-
Want is DV between 300x500km and 500x500km?
Roughly 55m/s by my calculations.
Thanks. While 55m/s isn't lot, but it is for cubesat with little or no propulsion.
-
This stuff seems to capable of an Isp at 300secs, be a mono-propellant and have unusually mass properties, more like a solid
I would be astonished if this worked at 300 sec ISP. It is a monopropellant. I would expect low 200s.
Rocket Lab posted a YouTube video claiming 300 sec vac ISP in the description.
Solids are also monopropellants and they are capable of 300 secs vac ISP at the high end. VLM seems to have a chemistry similar to solids from the patent. So it's not obviously out of the question.
A few solid motors get to 300 sec, but they have very large nozzles, very big expansion ratios. I don't see that with the thruster nozzle in the photo.
That makes sense, but 300s with a nozzle extension doesn't mean low 200s without.
We can also imagine it's somewhat formulation dependent, and perhaps some of the carrier liquids are less energetic at higher ratios. If they need lower viscosity for a small kick stage that might knock off a few more seconds. Still seems like it's in the high 200s.
-
Note also that hydrazine and hydrogen peroxide with catalysts don't need a spark igniter, which the Rocket Lab stuff required. Self ignition is much more fool proof for this restartable application. Now, we know it isn't hydrazine, since it was said to be "green".
This is a good point. Another thing that recommends this take is that the external appearance of the Curie engine resembles cutaways I've seen of the catalyst bed of a hydrazine thruster.
HTP is one option, and I believe N2O has also been suggested as a monoprop.
The simplicity and restartability points are well taken. I was also thinking more along the lines of delta-v needed for geostationary orbit raising, which is much more than discussed for these LEO circularization applications, I think <100 m/s has been mentioned here.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
-
Unless Rocket Lab has gambled with its space age goo, which I doubt for this application, it would have ISP similar to these. Even if it has the goo, it doesn't have the expansion ratio for much higher ISP.
I could be wrong!
- Ed Kyle
It's not like there is much to work with to estimate the ISP. All I can see is that the nozzle diameter of the thruster could be estimated by scaling it against the size of the kick stage, which should be close, but not necessarily exactly, 1.2 meters. The thrust is 120 newtons, but the prop density, mass flow rate, throat area, & theoretical ISP all all unknown. A picture & a patent, filed expertly to be as broad as possible, is not enough information to state anything definitive. Comparing against current RCS thrusters or solid rocket motors can only ballpark an estimate.
-
N2O seems unlikely if the bottle in the picture is a pressurant.
-
N2O seems unlikely if the bottle in the picture is a pressurant.
They likely have a cold-gas ACS system, which could also be used to pressurize the propellant tanks. Here's a design for an HTP system that used such a setup (Option D on Page 8).
https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2244&context=smallsat
- Ed Kyle
Ah, yes.. Per https://www.rocketlabusa.com/news/updates/rocket-lab-successfully-circularizes-orbit-with-new-electron-kick-stage/
"Equipped with a precision pointing cold gas reaction control system, the kick stage also has its own avionics, power and communications systems."
I agree that if it's also used a pressurant, then their "green" monoprop is either H2O2 or whatever the stuff is that they developed a while back.
-
Rocket Lab just tweeted this:
http://www.rocketlabusa.com/news/updates/rocket-lab-reaches-500-rutherford-engine-test-fires/
Contains a bunch of stats that I don't think had been previously disclosed.
First stage engine is 5500 lbf and 311s ISP, upper stage engine is 343s ISP (I assume this doesn't count the battery pods they jettison)
First stage engine is 35 kg, meaning T/W of 71.
-
Nice... Looking at the 2018-01-21 launch I get:
T+02:33 MECO
T+02:39 Stage-2 Ignition
T+04:50 3 km/s callout
T+08:15 SECO
So a 153 second burn duration for the first stage, and 336 second burn duration for the second stage.
-
We've produced a total of 40 flight-ready engines to date, and aim to make another 100 engines by the end of this year.
https://twitter.com/RocketLab/status/958853552784330752
-
and they responded to me! ;D ;D ;D They've produced 40 flight-ready Rutherfords up to this point, and intend to produce another 100 in 2018. That at least caps the number of flights they can conduct in 2018 at around 12, basically a monthly cadence.
https://twitter.com/RocketLab/status/958853552784330752
-
It's interesting to compare the upper stage Rutherford engine to Kestrel and AJ-10, since those are a similar thrust class, and I think the battery pumped rocket cycle would be most often traded against pressure fed. The higher ISP is exciting.
I think Rutherford must be getting a significantly higher chamber pressure than pressure fed engines, due to not having the constraint of tank pressure > chamber pressure and batteries having greater specific energy than COPV helium.
-
FWIW, at 35kg and 24,000N of thrust, the TWR of Rutherford is about 69.9. Battery powered turbopumps take a big toll. The impressive ISPs are clearly a necessity for Electron's efficiency to be practical!
-
FWIW, at 35kg and 24,000N of thrust, the TWR of Rutherford is about 69.9. Battery powered turbopumps take a big toll. The impressive ISPs are clearly a necessity for Electron's efficiency to be practical!
Well, pressure fed and electric pumped both have mass penalties. Electric has pump motors and battery mass, pressure fed has gas storage and a heavier tank. Electric can mitigate by battery jettison, pressure fed can mitigate with autogenous pressurization. Solid is also relevant at this size class and its tradeoff is relatively low ISP which it usually mitigates with an extra stage.
What I infer from looking at engines in roughly the same thrust class is that pressure fed ends up with a much lower chamber pressure, hence worse ISP especially in atmosphere with the first stage. Electric could easily use a lower chamber pressure and save battery mass at the cost of extra propellant but it seems like they ended up going to a higher pressure, and these numbers have actually been revised upwards from previously so this seems like a gift that keeps on giving.
We can compare other engines like FRE-1, Firefly's upper stage engine, that was going to be autogenous pressure fed with methane which has an intrinsically higher ISP than kerolox, and it was a paper engine, and they still ended up with lower ISP. That must have been because even with no pressurant constraint it still wasn't worth it for them to go to a higher pressure. So electric ends up looking really good here IMO.
All of these have penalties compared to advanced cycles but scaling those down is challenging. Russia has a number of advanced cycle engines in a similar thrust class for fourth stages like Briz-M and they have extremely good ISP for hypergolics but the T/W and dry mass of the engine isn't amazing. Similarly there's American kick stages at similar sizes, but these are usually solids. Still looks like a good deal for RL because they turn a bunch of complex and expensive problems into the relatively simple task of 3D printing engines and connecting them to batteries.
I don't expect to see EELV class launchers using electric pumped engines, but they look well suited for small launchers, and I wouldn't be surprised to see them in the future for things like advanced kick stages and landers.
-
I think Rutherford must be getting a significantly higher chamber pressure than pressure fed engines, due to not having the constraint of tank pressure > chamber pressure and batteries having greater specific energy than COPV helium.
They have given us data on the thrust (5500 lb/2500kg) and isp (311s), which gives a mass flow of ~ 8kg/s.
At a 2.6 ox/fuel ratio, the density is about ~1050 kg/m3, so volumetric flow through the pumps on each engine is about 0.0076m3/s.
They have also said that the batteries on the first stage provide 1MW of power, or 111kW per engine.
So, assuming a pump efficiency of 80%, the pressure rise across the pumps can be estimated at about ~12 MPa.
Assuming an injector pressure drop of 20% of chamber pressure that would suggest a chamber pressure of ~10MPa.
That's my guesstimate from the pump side.
-
I think Rutherford must be getting a significantly higher chamber pressure than pressure fed engines, due to not having the constraint of tank pressure > chamber pressure and batteries having greater specific energy than COPV helium.
They have given us data on the thrust (5500 lb/2500kg) and isp (311s), which gives a mass flow of ~ 8kg/s.
At a 2.6 ox/fuel ratio, the density is about ~1050 kg/m3, so volumetric flow through the pumps on each engine is about 0.0076m3/s.
They have also said that the batteries on the first stage provide 1MW of power, or 111kW per engine.
So, assuming a pump efficiency of 80%, the pressure rise across the pumps can be estimated at about ~12 MPa.
Assuming an injector pressure drop of 20% of chamber pressure that would suggest a chamber pressure of ~10MPa.
That's my guesstimate from the pump side.
Nice, cheers. I think I guessed about 5.5 MPa from the area ratio but that was a while ago and their ISP and thrust numbers have increased from previous statements so it sounds like they've gone through a few iterations.
-
and they responded to me! ;D ;D ;D They've produced 40 flight-ready Rutherfords up to this point, and intend to produce another 100 in 2018. That at least caps the number of flights they can conduct in 2018 at around 12, basically a monthly cadence.
https://twitter.com/RocketLab/status/958853552784330752
They're supposed to respond to you, you're a journalist :)
-
If they use the Rutherford engine in some sort of multi burn orbital adjustment stage. Would it make sense to add a solar array along with a small battery to power the turbopump and keep the propellants from boiling off or freezing?
-
If they use the Rutherford engine in some sort of multi burn orbital adjustment stage. Would it make sense to add a solar array along with a small battery to power the turbopump and keep the propellants from boiling off or freezing?
At 111kW/engine, that's a panel array similar in size to the ISS' (up to 120kW). If you add an accumulator to allow you to use a smaller array, you've now added the battery you were trying to eliminate back in again.
-
If they use the Rutherford engine in some sort of multi burn orbital adjustment stage. Would it make sense to add a solar array along with a small battery to power the turbopump and keep the propellants from boiling off or freezing?
At 111kW/engine, that's a panel array similar in size to the ISS' (up to 120kW). If you add an accumulator to allow you to use a smaller array, you've now added the battery you were trying to eliminate back in again.
What is that kwh battery storage for the Electron core and how many kg does it take?
Only need one Rutherford with about 90 seconds bursts of burn time at the most during orbital adjustments at perigee. So need about 120 seconds of battery storage time to operate the turbopump and ancillary functions. Multiple orbits can be use to charge up the battery to full.
So the question is how much battery storage is needed for 120 seconds of turbopump operation.
This is a multi burn orbital adjustment stage not an upper or departure stage.
-
How much or do they power the system through umblicals until launch and umbilical disconnect? In other words, battery don't begin to deplete until no ground power is available. Certainly would helped that initial current surge that normally happens with motor starts.
-
What is that kwh battery storage for the Electron core and how many kg does it take?
If it's a megawatt for 2.5 minutes then about 42 kwh. But it is almost certainly more. The "over a megawatt" number was reported years back and reported thrust/ISP numbers have increased since then, a greater flow rate and higher pressure implies higher power.
For the battery mass, who knows. It depends on how much cooling is necessary and what their cooling system looks like. The first stage could potentially use propellant flow for cooling but probably not the upper stage given the battery jettison.
-
The better batteries are 240wh/kg so 175kg for 42kwh. But these are for normal discharge rates of 2-3C. Electron would need 20-30C, so expect lot heavier battery with lower wh/kg.
-
What is the future evolutionary roadmap for this rocket?
-
Some minor upgrades, no doubt. If their business should really catch on, then we might expect a scaled-up version capable of placing at least a couple tons in various orbits.
-
What is the future evolutionary roadmap for this rocket?
Well, we've seen increased thrust and ISP from the Rutherford engine. This suggests they may already have improved on the advertised performance. I assume they will make other incremental performance improvements over time as any rocket would. One nice aspect of using batteries is that RL can incorporate improved batteries over time without much development work on their part. RL's batteries must be quite a high power chemistry since they are discharged in only a few minutes, and improvements in density vs power are always happening.
Another improvement would be qualifying the upper stage for multiple burns. They clearly did not regard this as part of their minimum viable product but it would enable them to eliminate the kick stage for circularization burns and may enable some neat BEO applications.
For performance improvements, it wouldn't be that surprising to see incremental performance improvements up to perhaps several times the current payload to LEO, as many of the technologies Rocket Lab draws on are improving quite rapidly, such as carbon composites, batteries, 3D printing, etc.
The trend (Orbital ATK, SpaceX) has been for smallsat launchers to end up at larger sizes but I tend to think Rocket Lab experiences the pressure to do so less strongly, as SpaceX's presence as well as others like Blue Origin reduces the potential benefit. RL's technology likely has trouble scaling up that far, turbopumped rocket cycles are still going to win above a certain size.
-
The trend (Orbital ATK, SpaceX) has been for smallsat launchers to end up at larger sizes but I tend to think Rocket Lab experiences the pressure to do so less strongly, as SpaceX's presence as well as others like Blue Origin reduces the potential benefit. RL's technology likely has trouble scaling up that far, turbopumped rocket cycles are still going to win above a certain size.
My knowledge of turbomachinery is small, but I wonder if a significant part of the hardness of it on the low end is getting startup to work well.
If this is true, a small (relatively) electric motor of a few tens of percent of nominal might help lots in getting a marginal due to low mass design stable.
-
My knowledge of turbomachinery is small, but I wonder if a significant part of the hardness of it on the low end is getting startup to work well.
The startup sequence is challenging at any size. :)
My understanding is that as you scale turbines down the mechanical tolerances for good efficiency are extremely challenging. The result is that the turbine can't scale down as much as the rest of the engine and the thrust to weight ratio ends up being quite poor. Hence an electric pumped engine has advantages because while there's a mass penalty, it's at least a cheap mass penalty with low development costs. Also as we see with Electron's upper stage, it's possible to jettison some of the battery mass.
-
The better batteries are 240wh/kg so 175kg for 42kwh. But these are for normal discharge rates of 2-3C. Electron would need 20-30C, so expect lot heavier battery with lower wh/kg.
Amongst the things that I do, I do MultiCopter (drone) racing, 400g flying machines with 0-60 in tenths of a second.
High perfomance lipos (lithium polymer battries) and deliver an explosive ammout of energy (literally at times) for instance I have 236gm battries that can deliver 2741w in 180s (1330mh 22.2v 6s 95c). If you wanted more longer time you can get 30000mh battries with 25c at 22.2v for arround 3kg. If you needed a higher voltage you can use mutiple battries in parallel.
Looking at the needs of the rocket I would think they are using simmlar lipos.
-
The startup sequence is challenging at any size. :)
My understanding is that as you scale turbines down the mechanical tolerances for good efficiency are extremely challenging. The result is that the turbine can't scale down as much as the rest of the engine and the thrust to weight ratio ends up being quite poor. Hence an electric pumped engine has advantages because while there's a mass penalty, it's at least a cheap mass penalty with low development costs. Also as we see with Electron's upper stage, it's possible to jettison some of the battery mass.
Clearances are an issue, as is the boundary layer, which does not scale down so much, so at a certain size basically the whole gap between blades is boundary layer. These are the issues that have encouraged people to look at (and build) positive displacement pumps for the job below about 5000 lbs.
With turbo driven turbopumps there's a certain amount of interconnectedness, with the pace at which the pump can change depending on the drive system. There seemed to be an idea that this would not be the case with staged combustion, but the problems developing the SSME start sequence disagree.
Having the pump being driven by batteries shifts this problem to a power electronics problem, which have made huge strides since the 70's onwards.
BTW Regarding upgrades this is called "Electron," IIRC Rutherford was from NZ and I'd imagine they might be planning a bigger launcher called "Proton," probably not quite 1800x bigger than an Electron however. :). Electron is 1.2m in diameter. Road transportable LVs are about 12-14 feet in dia, so a 3x increase in diameter would be viable before they'd have to consider special transport arrangements.
-
Watch those batteries when you charge them and even after you charge them, as I sure you know. I investigate a lot of LiPo fires, especially of the hobby batteries that have little mechanical protection from physical damage.
I'm curious what they do for thermal management, or whether it's necessary when they don't care about cycle life.
Better batteries would also be needed if restart was a goal one day.
Why? A battery that can restart is just a battery.
I don't see Rocket Lab rushing to develop a bigger rocket. Cubesat was the goal, and Electron more than meets that goal.
I think incremental performance gains would allow them to reach more LEO payloads, more in the Orbcomm OG2 to Iridium size range. That seems worthwhile if they can do it without taking on a bigger cost structure.
The nature of their propulsion stack strikes me as well positioned to do that, and they've already bumped the numbers on the engines, significantly better ISP and more thrust. That kinda makes me think they can already launch more than they advertise.
-
Better batteries would also be needed if restart was a goal one day.
Why? A battery that can restart is just a battery.
Presumably, they are using up the battery charge for the single burn. They would need more Coulombs to do a restart and second burn, thus either more batteries or more charge capacity. Better batteries would have higher charge density, or more charge per kg.
Think about it though. The propellant and the batteries will be sized so they're roughly in proportion so neither wastes mass unnecessarily. Pump energy for a given volume and pressure gradient should be roughly constant whether it's one burn or several. Hence if they're using up the battery for a single burn, they're also using up all the propellant. And it's not true that adding propellant is the only way to do multiple burns, that's not how rockets work. It's also possible to use a smaller payload so there's propellant remaining after reaching the initial parking orbit. In an electric pumped rocket, propellant remaining is the same thing as battery charge remaining, if Rocket Lab is doing their jobs both are depleted at the same time.
I mean, I'm ignoring whatever the startup power draw is, and whatever battery energy is consumed when coasting, let's assume that's minimal for the sake of argument. The point of improved batteries wouldn't be to add energy, it would be to reduce dry mass. What would increase the need for battery energy is increasing combustion chamber pressure again to increase ISP or add propellant mass.
I would think what they need for multiple burns is what anyone else needs, ullage thrusters and so forth.
-
Startup draw is large, we are led to believe. So multiple starts, even for the same amount of propellant consumed by(and thus pumped into) the engines, may consume more total energy than a single start.
-
Inrush current limiting during motor startup isn't some uncharted territory, especially is motors using electronically controlled commutation. I can't help but to doubt that this would be the primary issue precluding RL from being able to do a restart. Even using capacitors to handle high rush current which are charged by the batteries at a lower rate wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility.
-
Startup draw is large, we are led to believe. So multiple starts, even for the same amount of propellant consumed by(and thus pumped into) the engines, may consume more total energy than a single start.
Inrush current can be more than steady state but time at the higher draw is short, doesn't seem like it impacts the total mission energy budget very much. Batteries are also fairly good at dealing with this as long as the fuse/breakers take inrush current into account. In Rocket Lab's case it can be further mitigated because the entire thing is computer controlled and the engine's start box is undoubtedly extremely forgiving.
-
Not saying it can't be handled, just that a start up might use more energy than the equivalent steady state time, for less propellants moved. More start ups mean slightly more energy requirements overall. Not sure how slightly.
-
Maybe someone who understands turbopump hydrodynamics can chime in and correct me, but I suspect generating your peak torque on the impeller from a standstill would be undesirable from a flow perspective, nevermind a mechanical one. The ramp up possibly isn't even as fast as it technically could be, and so startup current would have to be limited anyway.
-
Keep in mind also that the 3D printed engines likely have just enough material (plus margin) for the mission.
Had wondered with the aborted start in December if all nine were replaced, because they were consumed past margin (you could do acceptance testing by making lots not intended for flight with more margin).
The engine concept leads itself to performance enhancement by trimming losses in these ways. (You could also design the batteries with an advantage for a certain discharge curve and limited life to trim weight more.)
Maybe someone who understands turbopump hydrodynamics can chime in and correct me, but I suspect generating your peak torque on the impeller from a standstill would be undesirable from a flow perspective, never mind a mechanical one. The ramp up possibly isn't even as fast as it technically could be, and so startup current would have to be limited anyway.
Yes.
BTW, with modern electric vehicles we've had to design torque management into the motor/transmission/other - the early ones had so much torque they would shear axles/other. You'd have a control system that models current vs torque to match.
-
Keep in mind also that the 3D printed engines likely have just enough material (plus margin) for the mission.
I did see a comment that they are likely eroding as we can see sparks, which makes sense given the materials properties of 3D printing (likely tiny voids in the material that lead to hotspots on the surface in the combustion chamber?), but there too it seems like they would fab the engines with adequate burn time to fully consume the propellant, so also not a barrier to a ~3 burn mission.
-
Had wondered with the aborted start in December if all nine were replaced, because they were consumed past margin (you could do acceptance testing by making lots not intended for flight with more margin).
The engine concept leads itself to performance enhancement by trimming losses in these ways. (You could also design the batteries with an advantage for a certain discharge curve and limited life to trim weight more.)
SOP for rocket design seems to start with conservative IE Large design margins, then gradually reduce those margins to lower structural and engine weight as operating experience is gained.
Now they have a first full launch I'd presume RL will be studying all the launch data and looking at where things weren't just in the nominal range, but narrowly in the nominal range
Let's see what happens with flight 3.
-
BTW Regarding upgrades this is called "Electron," IIRC Rutherford was from NZ and I'd imagine they might be planning a bigger launcher called "Proton," probably not quite 1800x bigger than an Electron however. :). Electron is 1.2m in diameter. Road transportable LVs are about 12-14 feet in dia, so a 3x increase in diameter would be viable before they'd have to consider special transport arrangements.
Methinks you are seriously under-estimating New Zealand's road network. ;D
From what we've seen already, they have a little room to move but not much. There are many good reasons why Electron is the size and configuration it currently is and although up to a 2x increase might just possibly be doable, maybe,... 3x?!? No. Don't think so.
-
Startup draw is large, we are led to believe. So multiple starts, even for the same amount of propellant consumed by(and thus pumped into) the engines, may consume more total energy than a single start.
By who?
It's an impeller, working against ~800PSI (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35300.msg1363992#msg1363992), or 6MPa.
The device consumes ~100kW per engine static. The rotor mass is of the order of a kilo.
It's going to take very little time to come up to speed, and is going to be dominated utterly by the fluid pumping load.
Also, on shutdown, some or most of the startup energy will be recovered.
'soft start' if you're concerned about instantaneous loads when at zero speed is pretty much inherent in this class of motor driver.
The only way I can imagine a large surge power would be if you try to valve off the outlet while bringing the impeller up to speed - but that seems unlikely to me for many reasons. (boiling LOX, ...)
-
One other consideration - running the turbo dry/tail off. If you sense the motor current load and if the sump is dry. you can cut/reverse current, and get a precision burn down to the last drop, without fear of turbo blowing (if you new/inferred turbo pressure, you could even stretch a marginal/failing one by accepting an lesser iSP and compensating in the GNC too).
-
One other consideration - running the turbo dry/tail off. If you sense the motor current load and if the sump is dry. you can cut/reverse current, and get a precision burn down to the last drop, without fear of turbo blowing (if you new/inferred turbo pressure, you could even stretch a marginal/failing one by accepting an lesser iSP and compensating in the GNC too).
Something else I noticed, it looks like a very quick startup sequence after staging. On another vehicle like Falcon 9 you see maybe 3 seconds before the exhaust settles down. With Election there's no visible startup like that and acceleration as visible from moving away from the first stage begins effectively immediately.
-
One other consideration - running the turbo dry/tail off. If you sense the motor current load and if the sump is dry. you can cut/reverse current, and get a precision burn down to the last drop, without fear of turbo blowing (if you new/inferred turbo pressure, you could even stretch a marginal/failing one by accepting an lesser iSP and compensating in the GNC too).
Something else I noticed, it looks like a very quick startup sequence after staging. On another vehicle like Falcon 9 you see maybe 3 seconds before the exhaust settles down. With Election there's no visible startup like that and acceleration as visible from moving away from the first stage begins effectively immediately.
You can see this on the first stage too, it appears to go from first visible flames to upward acceleration in about 1 second or so, much faster than Falcon 9 launches. I think in both cases we can chalk it up to precise speed control of the electric pumps.
-
One other consideration - running the turbo dry/tail off. If you sense the motor current load and if the sump is dry. you can cut/reverse current, and get a precision burn down to the last drop, without fear of turbo blowing (if you new/inferred turbo pressure, you could even stretch a marginal/failing one by accepting an lesser iSP and compensating in the GNC too).
Something else I noticed, it looks like a very quick startup sequence after staging. On another vehicle like Falcon 9 you see maybe 3 seconds before the exhaust settles down. With Election there's no visible startup like that and acceleration as visible from moving away from the first stage begins effectively immediately.
The faster you light your 2nd stage, the less dV losses you get from gravity. Falcon 9 2nd stage is large and powerful enough to absorb some losses. Not so much leeway for a small launcher.
-
The faster you light your 2nd stage, the less dV losses you get from gravity. Falcon 9 2nd stage is large and powerful enough to absorb some losses. Not so much leeway for a small launcher.
I get that it's beneficial to start the engine as soon as possible, but regardless it looks like the startup sequence is significantly quicker.
-
That would seem to make sense as there's no inter-dependency loop such as when you have a turbine energized by a gas generator fed by a pump powered by the turbine. Not only is an electric pump startup significantly simplified over a GG-based pump, the electric motor can generate higher torque at lower RPM than a gas turbine with equivalent power output in its primary operating range.
The more we discuss it, the more convinced I am that electric pumps really are the way to go for this class of launcher, especially for any company without fat gov-backed funding.
-
That would seem to make sense as there's no inter-dependency loop such as when you have a turbine energized by a gas generator fed by a pump powered by the turbine. Not only is an electric pump startup significantly simplified over a GG-based pump, the electric motor can generate higher torque at lower RPM than a gas turbine with equivalent power output in its primary operating range.
If you mean higher torque at lower RPM for the purposes of initial pumping, the load on the pump is some large factor (about ^3) of RPM, as RPM goes with pressure, and volume goes with RPM too.
This means that low RPM is basically irrelevant as the pump is almost free-spinning, and the primary load is inertia in the startup sequence.
If you mean you can optimise for a lower overall RPM than you might end up with as a 100kW output turbine of minimum weight as the source - perhaps.
To a moderate extent, more RPM means lighter motors per unit power as they tend to be torque limited per unit weight, meaning high RPM is good.
-
Regardless of what the primary load might be on the motor/turbine at a given RPM, the greater the torque supplied to the pump during spin-up, the quicker it could get to its designated operating point (within structural and fluid dynamic limits, of course).
But I concede that the apparent quickness of the Rutherford power-up could simply be attributed to the scale of the engines verses those of the large orbital machines rather than the choice of turbopumps. Though as far as rotating machinery goes, I can't think of any of the regular prime movers that have the kind of acceleration so typically common in electric motors. Maybe it's both.. Or maybe neither. ???
-
That would seem to make sense as there's no inter-dependency loop such as when you have a turbine energized by a gas generator fed by a pump powered by the turbine. Not only is an electric pump startup significantly simplified over a GG-based pump, the electric motor can generate higher torque at lower RPM than a gas turbine with equivalent power output in its primary operating range.
I'm not sure about the torque part being important, but it does seem like the startup sequence is simplified relative to GG and other cycles, due to the GG needing to supply its own fuel/oxidizer as well as provide the correct startup conditions for the main combustion chamber. Pretty sure ignition in the main combustion chamber needs to be very fuel rich to avoid a hard start.
My understanding from following the AR-1/BE-4 progress is that developing the startup sequence is extremely sensitive and there can be RUDs.
edit: fixed, thanks russianhalo117
-
That would seem to make sense as there's no inter-dependency loop such as when you have a turbine energized by a gas generator fed by a pump powered by the turbine. Not only is an electric pump startup significantly simplified over a GG-based pump, the electric motor can generate higher torque at lower RPM than a gas turbine with equivalent power output in its primary operating range.
I'm not sure about the torque part being important, but it does seem like the startup sequence is simplified relative to GG and other cycles, due to the GG needing to supply its own fuel/oxidizer as well as provide the correct startup conditions for the main combustion chamber. Pretty sure ignition in the main combustion chamber needs to be very fuel rich to avoid a hard start.
My understanding from following the AJ-10/BE-4 progress is that developing the startup sequence is extremely sensitive and there can be RUDs.
You mean AR-1 as AJ-10 first operational version dates back to 1957.
-
Keep in mind also that the 3D printed engines likely have just enough material (plus margin) for the mission.
I did see a comment that they are likely eroding as we can see sparks, which makes sense given the materials properties of 3D printing (likely tiny voids in the material that lead to hotspots on the surface in the combustion chamber?), but there too it seems like they would fab the engines with adequate burn time to fully consume the propellant, so also not a barrier to a ~3 burn mission.
I wonder if this bug could be turned into a feature: if the sintered powder is already going to ablate into small particles, sinter the inner nozzle liner out of a propellant metal, e.g. Aluminium, Beryllium, Boron, etc. As long as the particle size is small enough for most combustion to occur while within the nozzle bell, it will be a net contributor to thrust, and without the particulate issues of having it incorporated into the fuel itself.
-
One other consideration - running the turbo dry/tail off. If you sense the motor current load and if the sump is dry. you can cut/reverse current, and get a precision burn down to the last drop, without fear of turbo blowing (if you new/inferred turbo pressure, you could even stretch a marginal/failing one by accepting an lesser iSP and compensating in the GNC too).
Improving the precision of engine cut off can pay quite big dividends in terms of accuracy of the final orbit.
-
Rocket Lab completes fit check for NASA VCLS ELaNa XIX mission
Early this month, Rocket Lab performed a successful fit check of the CubeSat dispensers for the NASA Venture Class Launch Service flight of the CubeSat Launch Initiative Educational Launch of Nanosatellites (ELaNa) XIX mission. The fit check was carried out at Rocket Lab’s Huntington Beach payload integration cleanroom.
Venture Class launches aim to provide dedicated launches for CubeSats that would normally fly as secondary payloads, enabling these science missions to get exactly where they need to go on orbit.
The fit check was performed between a Rocket Lab Electron Payload Plate - the interface between Electron and the payloads - and a series of Tyvak Nano-Satellite Systems and Planetary Systems Corporation dispensers. Teams from Tyvak and Rocket Lab participated in the fit check.
Fit checks provide valuable risk reduction in payload integration by verifying physical interfaces and allowing for a dry run of installation procedures prior to the launch campaign.
The Huntington Beach Payload Integration Cleanroom is a Class 100k cleanroom located in our Rocket Lab USA Headquarters. This cleanroom is used for payloads that are processed in the United States before being shipped to their final launch site, such as Launch Complex 1 in Mahia, New Zealand. The facility will be used for the processing of the NASA ELaNa XIX payloads, which will be integrated to their dispensers in the United States before shipment to the launch site later this year for installation on Electron.
The Electron Payload Plate is a customizable interface which can support a variety of CubeSat and Microsatellite dispensers and separation systems. The Payload Plate can be entirely removed from Electron, allowing for integration to occur away from the launch site, such as in our Huntington Beach cleanroom or at a remote customer facility. Rocket Lab can accommodate both single and multipayload configurations on the plate.
The target launch date for the NASA Venture Class Launch Service ELaNa XIX mission is yet to be announced. The launch will see the following CubeSats deployed:
CubeSat: Andesite
Organization: Boston University
CubeSat: Ceres
Organization: NASA Goddard Spaceflight Center
CubeSat: STF-1
Organization: NASA Goddard Spaceflight Center
CubeSat: CubeSail
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
CubeSat: CHOMPTT
Organization: University of Florida
CubeSat: NMTSat
Organization: New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology
CubeSat: DaVinci
Organization: North Idaho STEM Charter Academy
CubeSat: Rsat
Organization: U. S. Naval Academy
CubeSat: ISX
Organization: California Polytechnic State University
CubeSat: Shields-1
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
CubeSat: ALBus
Organization: NASA Glenn Research Center
CubeSat: SHFT-1
Organization: NASA JPL
https://www.rocketlabusa.com/news/updates/rocket-lab-completes-fit-check-for-nasa-vcls-elana-xix-mission/
-
Keep in mind also that the 3D printed engines likely have just enough material (plus margin) for the mission.
I did see a comment that they are likely eroding as we can see sparks, which makes sense given the materials properties of 3D printing (likely tiny voids in the material that lead to hotspots on the surface in the combustion chamber?), but there too it seems like they would fab the engines with adequate burn time to fully consume the propellant, so also not a barrier to a ~3 burn mission.
I wonder if this bug could be turned into a feature: if the sintered powder is already going to ablate into small particles, sinter the inner nozzle liner out of a propellant metal, e.g. Aluminium, Beryllium, Boron, etc. As long as the particle size is small enough for most combustion to occur while within the nozzle bell, it will be a net contributor to thrust, and without the particulate issues of having it incorporated into the fuel itself.
Not a good idea.
Combustion is chaotic and not always as stoichiometric as one would like. So you could have a "burn through" or a velocity "accumulation clog" (byproduct) and the engine might behave nonlinearly/detonate. You want a predictable burn/reliable engine expectation of function.
-
A great stage one stack test completed for our upcoming third flight. Nine #Rutherford engines firing in sync is a thing of beauty.
https://twitter.com/rocketlab/status/965431545136693248
-
Those tests appear to be with a shortened stage 1 tank. Do they just take off the whole engine structure and attach it as one piece to a flight vehicle for launch?
-
Rocket Lab completes fit check for NASA VCLS ELaNa XIX mission
Early this month, Rocket Lab performed a successful fit check of the CubeSat dispensers for the NASA Venture Class Launch Service flight of the CubeSat Launch Initiative Educational Launch of Nanosatellites (ELaNa) XIX mission. The fit check was carried out at Rocket Lab’s Huntington Beach payload integration cleanroom.
Venture Class launches aim to provide dedicated launches for CubeSats that would normally fly as secondary payloads, enabling these science missions to get exactly where they need to go on orbit.
The fit check was performed between a Rocket Lab Electron Payload Plate - the interface between Electron and the payloads - and a series of Tyvak Nano-Satellite Systems and Planetary Systems Corporation dispensers. Teams from Tyvak and Rocket Lab participated in the fit check.
Fit checks provide valuable risk reduction in payload integration by verifying physical interfaces and allowing for a dry run of installation procedures prior to the launch campaign.
The Huntington Beach Payload Integration Cleanroom is a Class 100k cleanroom located in our Rocket Lab USA Headquarters. This cleanroom is used for payloads that are processed in the United States before being shipped to their final launch site, such as Launch Complex 1 in Mahia, New Zealand. The facility will be used for the processing of the NASA ELaNa XIX payloads, which will be integrated to their dispensers in the United States before shipment to the launch site later this year for installation on Electron.
The Electron Payload Plate is a customizable interface which can support a variety of CubeSat and Microsatellite dispensers and separation systems. The Payload Plate can be entirely removed from Electron, allowing for integration to occur away from the launch site, such as in our Huntington Beach cleanroom or at a remote customer facility. Rocket Lab can accommodate both single and multipayload configurations on the plate.
The target launch date for the NASA Venture Class Launch Service ELaNa XIX mission is yet to be announced. The launch will see the following CubeSats deployed:
CubeSat: Andesite
Organization: Boston University
CubeSat: Ceres
Organization: NASA Goddard Spaceflight Center
CubeSat: STF-1
Organization: NASA Goddard Spaceflight Center
CubeSat: CubeSail
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
CubeSat: CHOMPTT
Organization: University of Florida
CubeSat: NMTSat
Organization: New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology
CubeSat: DaVinci
Organization: North Idaho STEM Charter Academy
CubeSat: Rsat
Organization: U. S. Naval Academy
CubeSat: ISX
Organization: California Polytechnic State University
CubeSat: Shields-1
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
CubeSat: ALBus
Organization: NASA Glenn Research Center
CubeSat: SHFT-1
Organization: NASA JPL
https://www.rocketlabusa.com/news/updates/rocket-lab-completes-fit-check-for-nasa-vcls-elana-xix-mission/
That is quite a list.
I especially like the fact they could all be attached to the mounting plate "offline" and then the whole package is attached to the LV as a single unit.
-
Rocket Lab says smouldering battery problem fixed
26 Feb, 2018 11:37am
Rocket Lab says it has found the reason a battery overheated on its assembly line and has put corrective measures in place.
Firefighters were called to the company last night after the manufacturing area was affected by smoke from the lithium battery.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12002151
-
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12002151
That sounds a very nasty mix of gases and particles to inhale. :(
-
There doesn't seem to be a thread for Rocket Lab's launch today. Not here nor in the live event section. Latest I heard said it was today.
Just three more hours left, assuming "march 1st" is in NZ time. Should I assume the launch has been postponed?
-
There doesn't seem to be a thread for Rocket Lab's launch today. Not here nor in the live event section. Latest I heard said it was today.
Just three more hours left, assuming "march 1st" is in NZ time. Should I assume the launch has been postponed?
All they actually said is the launch is in march-i.e. NET march 1st. There's no NOTAM up for it, so definitely not going tomorrow.
-
Thx. Seeing the date everywhere made me think it was already confirmed. Another sign paperwork is harder than licking gravity :p
-
Celebrating #InternationalWomensDay2018 with some of our rocket women. All industries, including ours, are stronger with more women in STEM careers. To all the young women dreaming of becoming scientists and engineers, we're with you. Dream big and do it!
https://twitter.com/rocketlab/status/971584938163060736?s=21
Note NASA logo on hardware in background.
-
Celebrating #InternationalWomensDay2018 with some of our rocket women. All industries, including ours, are stronger with more women in STEM careers. To all the young women dreaming of becoming scientists and engineers, we're with you. Dream big and do it!
https://twitter.com/rocketlab/status/971584938163060736?s=21
Note NASA logo on hardware in background.
The NASA logo might have something to do with this:
Peter Beck: “We’ve officially accelerated into full commercial operations, so we’re trying to manifest flight three in a really short time frame. And then flight four is a NASA flight, a NASA VCLS flight.
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/03/rocket-lab-capitalize-test-flight-success-first-operational-mission/
-
Meet Maxwell, our in-house designed and built cubesat dispenser. Available in 1U, 3U and 6U form factors (or larger on request). These are some of the lightest dispensers on the market. Visit us at Satellite 2018 tomorrow to see them. #Maxwell #SATShow
https://twitter.com/rocketlab/status/972922529718321152?s=21
-
Electron will launch two LEMUR-2s on the next launch in the coming weeks:
"Huntington Beach, California. March 13, 2018: US orbital launch provider Rocket Lab has today confirmed its next launch will be the company’s first fully commercial flight. Two Lemur-2 cubesats for launch customer Spire Global will be on board the upcoming launch, with the full manifest to be confirmed in coming weeks.
The flight’s name was put to a vote on social media, with “It’s Business Time” coming out as a clear fan favourite and a continuation of company’s previous flight names, “It’s a Test” and “Still Testing”.
Rocket Lab founder and CEO Peter Beck says “It’s Business Time” highlights Rocket Lab’s agile approach to responsive space. The launch has been manifested weeks out from launch, rather than the many months or years it can typically take under existing launch models.
“We came at the challenge of opening access to space from a new perspective. Building to tail numbers and tailoring a vehicle to the payload is a rigid and slow way of getting satellites on orbit. As the satellite industry continues to innovate at a break-neck pace and the demand for orbital infrastructure grows, we’re there with a production line of Electron vehicles ready to go and a private launch site licensed for flight every 72 hours. Launch will no longer be the bottleneck that slows innovation in space,” he says.
“We always set out to test a launch vehicle that was as close to production-ready as possible. To complete a test program so quickly and be flying commercial customers is a great feeling. It’s business time,” Mr Beck adds.
Rocket Lab’s third Electron vehicle will be shipped to Launch Complex 1 on New Zealand’s Māhia Peninsula in coming weeks, where final checkouts will be completed ahead of the “It’s Business Time” launch.
This year Rocket Lab is increasing its launch cadence and scaling up production of the Electron launch vehicle to meet a growing manifest. The company aims to produce 100 Rutherford engines in 2018 from its three-acre headquarters and production facility in Huntington Beach, California. More than 30 engines have already been completed and are undergoing integration onto Electron vehicles.
Rocket Lab’s first test launch, “It’s a Test,” was completed in May 2017, with the second test, “Still Testing,” taking place in January 2018. This flight successfully reached orbit, deployed commercial customer payloads for Planet and Spire Global and circularized an orbit using a previously unannounced kick stage."
http://www.rocketlabusa.com/news/updates/its-business-time-at-rocket-lab/
Source: https://twitter.com/RocketLab/status/973706806055718912
-
Rocket Lab New Zealand Operations
The second launch is scheduled for early December,two AAC personnel are in Mahia to perform equipment modifications.
Our contract was for eight launches in 2017, we might only have one launch, pushing launches into 2018. Wehave international and commercial customers that are interested in using our site and equipment, we need a contract to know what our 2018 obligations are.
KNIGHT asked if Rocket Lab had paid AAC. Campbell said he had split the bill from the one launch that had two mobilizations. Rocket Lab believes there are discrepancies regarding the amount charged and what they owe.
Brad Schneider, Rocket Lab Vice President assures us they are talking about it. If we do not have a 2018 contract we will return our equipment to Alaska after the beginning of the year.
Usual source.
-
Executive Session
CAMPBELL, President and CEO read the request for Executive Session:
I request that the Chair now entertain a motion that the Board of Directors convene in Executive Session to discuss the following topics:
Rocket Lab May 25, 2017 Launch Failure Report Review
-
to discuss confidential/proprietary information concerning the launch failure report that was submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration by Rocket Lab USA the immediate public disclosure of which would have an adverse effect on the finances of AAC [AS 44.62.310(c)(1)]
Usual source
-
Next launch is 6-8 weeks away, so probably in May:
Rocket Lab’s third launch is scheduled within the next six to eight weeks and will be the company’s first commercial rocket sent into orbit.
Rocket Lab communications manager Morgan Bailey told a presentation at Mokotahi Hall on Sunday the organisation was “opening access to space to empower humanity”.
http://gisborneherald.co.nz/localnews/3291628-135/aiming-to-empower-humanity (http://gisborneherald.co.nz/localnews/3291628-135/aiming-to-empower-humanity)
-
Excited to be doing a Reddit AMA on r/space. Kicking off April 5 at 3:00 pm ET/ midday PT. (7:00am, 6 April for Kiwis).
https://twitter.com/Peter_J_Beck/status/978431231627898880
-
Exciting times! Out of interest, how many rockets do you have being built at one time?
https://twitter.com/davebateman/status/981618505463234561
Lots, pushing through almost 1 a month now.
https://twitter.com/peter_j_beck/status/981630134632329216
-
Peter Beck was on Reddit last night doing an Ask Me Anything (AMA):-
https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/8a1wwy/i_am_peter_beck_ask_me_anything_about_rocket_lab (https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/8a1wwy/i_am_peter_beck_ask_me_anything_about_rocket_lab)
Mostly generic stuff but a couple of snippets on the future and digs at Virgin, Vector and Relativity:
"Reusability doesn’t scale well for small rockets. No plans for an Electron Heavy."
I would agree with that. Ominous for companies talking about reusability e.g. PLD Space.
"Dear everyone. I'm not building a bigger rocket any time soon. But Electron isn't the endpoint for Rocket Lab."
That is cryptic. Specific about Electron. If he's not going to a heavier rocket, is he planning an interplanetary solution?
"Air launch has flaws. The reality is you still need FAA launch licences wherever you go. This is a massive process in itself. It takes years to get licences for one fixed location. The real practicalities of launching anywhere just don't stack up. "
I take that as a dig at both Virgin and Vector.
"As for Relativity, they're doing cool stuff. Take it from us though, some things make sense to 3D print and some things don't. It's about optimizing your material and process for the application. "
Basically I think he is saying Relativity are backing the wrong technology for structures/tanks.
"With Electron’s lift capability we could have launched the vast majority of spacecraft launched last year. If we doubled the potential payload mass we could have only launched an addition 2% of the market. Doesn’t stack up. As for the market size, lots are trying. Not all will make it. We’re currently the only dedicated small launcher that has made it to orbit. "
That is probably a dig at those offering larger payload masses like Firefly (1000kg). Although I'm not sure that is a direct competitor really, they are in another category of payload.
-
Peter Beck was on Reddit last night doing an Ask Me Anything (AMA):-
....
"Reusability doesn’t scale well for small rockets. No plans for an Electron Heavy."
I would agree with that. Ominous for companies talking about reusability e.g. PLD Space.
When you don't have much payload to begin with, loosing any is going to be significant.
"Dear everyone. I'm not building a bigger rocket any time soon. But Electron isn't the endpoint for Rocket Lab."
That is cryptic. Specific about Electron. If he's not going to a heavier rocket, is he planning an interplanetary solution?
So not a bigger basic rocket and not a bigger rocket by strapping cores together. This sounds like a statement of RL ambition, but recognizing they need to build a track record of successful launches first with their existing rocket. Same as any ELV really.
"Air launch has flaws. The reality is you still need FAA launch licences wherever you go. This is a massive process in itself. It takes years to get licences for one fixed location. The real practicalities of launching anywhere just don't stack up. "
I take that as a dig at both Virgin and Vector.
Pretty much any air launched concept I think. That includes Pegasus XL and Orbital Access.
"As for Relativity, they're doing cool stuff. Take it from us though, some things make sense to 3D print and some things don't. It's about optimizing your material and process for the application. "
Basically I think he is saying Relativity are backing the wrong technology for structures/tanks.
Yes. Like all mfg methods 3d printing is great for certain tasks. Over time it will become the default mfg flow for those parts. But for other components it's likely to be a lot more hazy that 3d is the best either in terms of cost, schedule, reliability or whatever metric you're measuring it by.
"With Electron’s lift capability we could have launched the vast majority of spacecraft launched last year. If we doubled the potential payload mass we could have only launched an addition 2% of the market. Doesn’t stack up. As for the market size, lots are trying. Not all will make it. We’re currently the only dedicated small launcher that has made it to orbit. "
That is probably a dig at those offering larger payload masses like Firefly (1000kg). Although I'm not sure that is a direct competitor really, they are in another category of payload.
But the rocket business is strange. Yes it's more expensive to build bigger, but it's not that much more expensive. That's why SX went from F1 to F9, and didn't bother with their (planned) F5 and F7. You can always fly lower payloads by just not loading the propellant on big enough liquid fueled LV. But if the payload is just too big to begin with you're not even in the race.
The fact remains RL is flying now and expecting to fly again soon. Depending on how you segment the market it could be said to be in the pole position in its market slot regarding available payload/inclination/velocity.
-
Peter Beck was on Reddit last night doing an Ask Me Anything (AMA):-
https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/8a1wwy/i_am_peter_beck_ask_me_anything_about_rocket_lab (https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/8a1wwy/i_am_peter_beck_ask_me_anything_about_rocket_lab)
Mostly generic stuff but a couple of snippets on the future and digs at Virgin, Vector and Relativity:
"Reusability doesn’t scale well for small rockets. No plans for an Electron Heavy."
I would agree with that. Ominous for companies talking about reusability e.g. PLD Space.
"Dear everyone. I'm not building a bigger rocket any time soon. But Electron isn't the endpoint for Rocket Lab."
That is cryptic. Specific about Electron. If he's not going to a heavier rocket, is he planning an interplanetary solution?
"Air launch has flaws. The reality is you still need FAA launch licences wherever you go. This is a massive process in itself. It takes years to get licences for one fixed location. The real practicalities of launching anywhere just don't stack up. "
I take that as a dig at both Virgin and Vector.
"As for Relativity, they're doing cool stuff. Take it from us though, some things make sense to 3D print and some things don't. It's about optimizing your material and process for the application. "
Basically I think he is saying Relativity are backing the wrong technology for structures/tanks.
"With Electron’s lift capability we could have launched the vast majority of spacecraft launched last year. If we doubled the potential payload mass we could have only launched an addition 2% of the market. Doesn’t stack up. As for the market size, lots are trying. Not all will make it. We’re currently the only dedicated small launcher that has made it to orbit. "
That is probably a dig at those offering larger payload masses like Firefly (1000kg). Although I'm not sure that is a direct competitor really, they are in another category of payload.
Optimizing 3DP for rockets is wrong, unless you are doing 3DP businees instead of rocket business.
I delayed my turbopump half year on it, even though I own a 3DP business, with customers making gold jewery.
-
But the rocket business is strange. Yes it's more expensive to build bigger, but it's not that much more expensive. That's why SX went from F1 to F9, and didn't bother with their (planned) F5 and F7. You can always fly lower payloads by just not loading the propellant on big enough liquid fueled LV. But if the payload is just too big to begin with you're not even in the race.
Is it though? Scaling from a Rutherford sized engine to a much bigger engine like Merlin incurs a lot more costs; magnitudes more. Primarily due to the processes involved manufacturing the parts. The part count of the engine goes up due to limitations of manufacturing techniques. Each kind of part (machined vs DMLS vs cast, ect) requires different types of post processing (heat treat, surface prep, ect) and QA. Having to go to a different set of suppliers to get your parts made (like massive forgings or cast parts).
Tooling for something the size of Merlin is a lot more costly than Rutherford. Like actually having to worry about proof rating the fixture (if your raw material fits on a desk vs several hundred pounds of forgings and castings). Bigger machines need to be bought too.
You'll need a much bigger test stand too; a Merlin sized engine won't fit in RL's current stand. Will need much bigger tanks and higher rated ground side equipment, ect.
SpaceX already had a big engine(Merlin) on the Falcon 1. Hence why it probably was really expensive that it was worth it for them to scale up to full Falcon 9 instead of staying with Falcon 1. Electron is a different vehicle.
-
Here is couple more replys regarding manifest and launch rate.
Electron's manifest is booked for the next two years for dedicated flights. Little bit of space for rideshare available, but we're not seeing a slowdown in demand any time soon.
This year one per month. Next year one every two weeks. Doubling down from there. Launch Complex 1 can support launches every 72 hours.
Future LVs reply:
Dear everyone. I'm not building a bigger rocket any time soon. But Electron isn't the endpoint for Rocket Lab.
Couldn't find his reply but said RL will be profitable after 5th flight. If they achieve the flight rates mentioned then 30 flights or $147m of revenue by end of 2019.
Expect the $4.9m price to drop as competition builds and they refine build process. But for now the demand out strips supply.
-
I love his answer about flying people at some point.
"We don't fly meat. We're focused on building orbital infrastructure to improve life on Earth."
They need to start selling that as a t-shirt asap.
-
The funny thing about the "we don't launch meat" comment is that one of the first rockets they launched when they were doing suborbitalsl carried a payload of lamb sausage. Zing, Peter Beck. Zing.
-
Is it though? Scaling from a Rutherford sized engine to a much bigger engine like Merlin incurs a lot more costs; magnitudes more. Primarily due to the processes involved manufacturing the parts. The part count of the engine goes up due to limitations of manufacturing techniques. Each kind of part (machined vs DMLS vs cast, ect) requires different types of post processing (heat treat, surface prep, ect) and QA. Having to go to a different set of suppliers to get your parts made (like massive forgings or cast parts).
Tooling for something the size of Merlin is a lot more costly than Rutherford. Like actually having to worry about proof rating the fixture (if your raw material fits on a desk vs several hundred pounds of forgings and castings). Bigger machines need to be bought too.
You'll need a much bigger test stand too; a Merlin sized engine won't fit in RL's current stand. Will need much bigger tanks and higher rated ground side equipment, ect.
SpaceX already had a big engine(Merlin) on the Falcon 1. Hence why it probably was really expensive that it was worth it for them to scale up to full Falcon 9 instead of staying with Falcon 1. Electron is a different vehicle.
What you're talking about is what I call the "step change" effect.
In any mfg system there are choke points that set the absolute top (or bottom, if you're making computer chips) limit on what your plant can do. In SX's case it's the size of their Friction Stir Welding setup. In RL's there will be some other machine or test stand.
So up to that size making it bigger is not that big an issue. Beyond that size you're into significant additional investment.
If you've planned ahead going bigger (to a point) is not that much more expensive. If RL planned for bigger in their engines, test stands and launch pads it should be pretty easy. If they bought the minimum size of equipment they needed to get Electron launched then going larger will be tough.
Also keep in mind Merlin has gone through about 4 generations and seen roughly a 70% (90%?) increase in thrust. Electrons' different cycle may be difficult to match that but I'm sure telemetry has suggested some areas where margin was very conservative and could be relaxed.
Naturally incremental improvements in Li battery technology directly upgrade the mass/thrust of the engine.
The tricky way to increase thrust (without increasing rocket mass) is to increase the pump speed without increasing tank pressure. This requires that you design a pump that accepts cavitation without damage. It's estimated that pump mass falls with the square of the pump speed. Double the speed, you can have a pump 1/4 the mass whatever is driving it, electric motor, gas generator etc.
This has been discussed before.
-
Couldn't find his reply but said RL will be profitable after 5th flight.
Cashflow positive. Not the same as profitable. You can be cashflow positive and unprofitable.
-
True, but they will probably be profitable the first full quarter after they are cash flow positive, barring setbacks. Their fixed costs are not likely to grow until their flight rate is about to exceed their current capacity and marginal cost growth should be in line with but lower than revenue growth.
-
True, but they will probably be profitable the first full quarter after they are cash flow positive, barring setbacks. Their fixed costs are not likely to grow until their flight rate is about to exceed their current capacity and marginal cost growth should be in line with but lower than revenue growth.
Well, he is talking about doubling production capacity every year for the next few years. You'd think that the investments associated with such massive growth are a good problem to have, but businesses have had trouble with that in the past.
That said, it should not be hard for them to scale production back down if sales don't keep up. Or to find new investors if refinancing becomes necessary.
-
Being cashflow positive means regular launches will cover all company's operational costs. Would also expect significant surplus for expansion, R&D and dividend payment to investors.
Their last funding round was $75m, bringing total to $148m. Most of $75m was for increasing production capability and as cash reserves. I don't know if $75m was loan or brought investors a shareholding of RL. If its shareholding the cash reserves belong to RL.
Not bad position to be in for new space company, cash flow positive, full order book and significant cash reserves for rainy days eg exploding rockets. Borrowing from banks is also option now for expansion if they want to hold onto cash reserves.
-
The fact that he said that Electron wasn't the end is interesting.
Maybe Rocketlabs might get into the small upper stage business? I.e. making a small upper stage like the Fregat with low thrust requirements that is compatible with most launchers and supplied by the launch customer rather than the launch company.
Leave cheap launch of multi-ton payloads to the big players and have them develop full reusability for their launchers. Use their existence to sell your own expendable product. It could allow players like SpaceX or Blue Origin to do two-stage with full reusability more easily, and give satellites direct injection capability into high orbits for just a couple million.
The Rutherford generally looks like it could be a really great and versatile engine for a lot of applications. If it gets fine throttle control it could also be usable for lunar landers.
-
But the rocket business is strange. Yes it's more expensive to build bigger, but it's not that much more expensive. That's why SX went from F1 to F9, and didn't bother with their (planned) F5 and F7. You can always fly lower payloads by just not loading the propellant on big enough liquid fueled LV. But if the payload is just too big to begin with you're not even in the race.
Is it though? Scaling from a Rutherford sized engine to a much bigger engine like Merlin incurs a lot more costs; magnitudes more. Primarily due to the processes involved manufacturing the parts. The part count of the engine goes up due to limitations of manufacturing techniques. Each kind of part (machined vs DMLS vs cast, ect) requires different types of post processing (heat treat, surface prep, ect) and QA. Having to go to a different set of suppliers to get your parts made (like massive forgings or cast parts).
Tooling for something the size of Merlin is a lot more costly than Rutherford. Like actually having to worry about proof rating the fixture (if your raw material fits on a desk vs several hundred pounds of forgings and castings). Bigger machines need to be bought too.
You'll need a much bigger test stand too; a Merlin sized engine won't fit in RL's current stand. Will need much bigger tanks and higher rated ground side equipment, ect.
SpaceX already had a big engine(Merlin) on the Falcon 1. Hence why it probably was really expensive that it was worth it for them to scale up to full Falcon 9 instead of staying with Falcon 1. Electron is a different vehicle.
Power electronics are more difficult to scale than metal parts.
-
Power electronics are more difficult to scale than metal parts.
What are you basing this on?
Yes, you do need many parallel individual semiconductor devices, and heatsinking, but once you're at 100kW, going to 10MW is not particularly more than increasing the number of modules, taking more care about the mounting and such. Only having to work for two minutes mitigates things also.
As I noted above in the thread, a F9 clone, replacing Merlins with Rutherfords gets broadly comparable performance, and in some ways is open to improvements that large numbers of engines isn't.
Scaling the engine only helps if it actually reduces your cost, or it performs lots better.
-
Maybe Rocketlabs might get into the small upper stage business? I.e. making a small upper stage like the Fregat with low thrust requirements that is compatible with most launchers and supplied by the launch customer rather than the launch company.
Leave cheap launch of multi-ton payloads to the big players and have them develop full reusability for their launchers. Use their existence to sell your own expendable product. It could allow players like SpaceX or Blue Origin to do two-stage with full reusability more easily, and give satellites direct injection capability into high orbits for just a couple million.
I was thinking of something similar, actually.
If fully reusable SHLV's become a reality and their costs are even close to current projections, Rocket Lab might be better served by commercializing their Curie third stage, or a derivative of it, rather than trying to sell an expendable small satellite launch vehicle with with a payload specific price hundreds of times higher.
Affordable third stages from a third party, like Rocket Lab, could solve the "last mile problem" of launching smallsats and cubesats in bulk, while preserving much of the benefits of larger, reusable launch vehicles.
-
If fully reusable SHLV's become a reality and their costs are even close to current projections, Rocket Lab might be better served by commercializing their Curie third stage, or a derivative of it, rather than trying to sell an expendable small satellite launch vehicle with with a payload specific price hundreds of times higher.
Affordable third stages from a third party, like Rocket Lab, could solve the "last mile problem" of launching smallsats and cubesats in bulk, while preserving much of the benefits of larger, reusable launch vehicles.
RL may have hit a particularly useful set of features for US use. Their battery electric pump technology is the only kind that (could) be recharged over time with a PV array (I'd suggest body mounted with the stage given a slow spin to avoid hot spots). LOX tanks can be pressurized by heating up some LOX and either battery or nozzle cooling tapoff can generate that heat. The only joker is the RP1 tank. This is not Integrated Vehicle Fluids as such, but it's a quite a nice (possible) synergy.
Now if the US were to be switched to a cryogenic fuel as well...
Obviously RL are a long way from this. I've no idea what sort of hit you take going from primary to secondary battery technology. Quite a lot I'd guess. But if you can manage LOX boiloff then anything but LH2 is not going to be too difficult for you. Now "all" you have to do is figure out how to refuel it on orbit. So you'll be needing a set of RCS thrusters as well.
-
Obviously RL are a long way from this. I've no idea what sort of hit you take going from primary to secondary battery technology. Quite a lot I'd guess. But if you can manage LOX boiloff then anything but LH2 is not going to be too difficult for you. Now "all" you have to do is figure out how to refuel it on orbit. So you'll be needing a set of RCS thrusters as well.
They almost certainly are already using secondary batteries, in this case, there are no suitable primary batteries at least at their current rates.
For long durations, thermal managment is going to be hard - methane/oxygen might significantly ease it over either hydrogen/oxygen or kerosene/oxygen.
Hydrogen is both underdense, and very, very cold, meaning your insulation gets lots more complex, as well as the pump being very different. Methane is a comparable density to kerosene, and a comparable temperature to LOX.
For body-scale solar panels, recharging the batteries is likely to take several hours per minute of thrust.
-
They've said that their third stage uses a "green monopropellant", which almost certainly means VLM (viscous liquid monopropellant), which they developed under a DARPA contract around five years ago. It's a high density solid when at rest, but becomes liquid when agitated or subjected to force (this allows for starting and stopping the motor, unlike traditional solids). They've stated that it has comparable performance to traditional solid propellants, so probably in the low to mid 200 second range.
-
They've said that their third stage uses a "green monopropellant", which almost certainly means VLM (viscous liquid monopropellant), which they developed under a DARPA contract around five years ago. It's a high density solid when at rest, but becomes liquid when agitated or subjected to force (this allows for starting and stopping the motor, unlike traditional solids). They've stated that it has comparable performance to traditional solid propellants, so probably in the low to mid 200 second range.
In the recent Reddit ama, Peter said that the kick stage doesn't use the VLM.
-
They've said that their third stage uses a "green monopropellant", which almost certainly means VLM (viscous liquid monopropellant), which they developed under a DARPA contract around five years ago. It's a high density solid when at rest, but becomes liquid when agitated or subjected to force (this allows for starting and stopping the motor, unlike traditional solids). They've stated that it has comparable performance to traditional solid propellants, so probably in the low to mid 200 second range.
In the recent Reddit ama, Peter said that the kick stage doesn't use the VLM.
Also, I'm not sure how "green" VLM is; not a chemist.
-
Also, I'm not sure how "green" VLM is; not a chemist.
It was described as non-toxic, which is pretty green for monopropellant.
In the recent Reddit ama, Peter said that the kick stage doesn't use the VLM.
Interesting, I thought I had seen all of the responses in that AMA. That does beg the question of what the Curie stage is running on, as it is described as using a "green monopropellant". Perhaps a derivative of VLM, which is technically not VLM?
-
Also, I'm not sure how "green" VLM is; not a chemist.
It was described as non-toxic, which is pretty green for monopropellant.
In the recent Reddit ama, Peter said that the kick stage doesn't use the VLM.
Interesting, I thought I had seen all of the responses in that AMA. That does beg the question of what the Curie stage is running on, as it is described as using a "green monopropellant". Perhaps a derivative of VLM, which is technically not VLM?
Since the name itself ("Viscous Liquid Monopropellant") doesn't actually name the chemical it could be pretty much anything to begin with.
The obvious storable, non toxic liquid mon and bipropellant is actually Hydrogen Peroxide in high concentration. Tested for at least 6 years storage on orbit if in properly engineered systems. Catalytic ignition available. Usable in either form and breaks down to O2 and Water, or superheated steam, so able to ignite most conventional fuels.
-
No need guess about VLM, the patent is out there:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20120234196 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US20120234196)
(Link edited.)
The VLM mixture of claim 1 further comprising any combination of:
a. a high-energy oxidiser additive or substitute or combination thereof present in an amount ranging from less than 1% to about 90% by mass,
b. a thermic agent or combination of thermic agents present in an amount ranging from less than 1% to about 25% by mass,
c. a surfactant or combination of surfactants present in an amount ranging from less than 1% to about 20% by mass,
d. a bonding agent or combination of bonding agents present in an amount ranging from less than 1% to about 10% by mass,
e. a rheology modifier or combination of rheology modifiers present in an amount ranging from less than 1% to about 10% by mass,
f. a burn rate modifier or combination of burn rate modifiers present in an amount ranging from less than 1% to about 10% by mass, or
g. a dissolved gas within the carrier fluid to improve dispersion, atomisation and combustion present in an amount ranging from less than 1% to about 25% by mass
An embodiment of this concept was prepared for use in a VLM rocket motor. The formulation was comprised of the following constituents, and was mixed in the following order:
# Compound/ingredient Proportion (%)
1 Polydimethylsiloxane (Carrier-fluid) 28.4%
2 Castor Oil Derivative (thickener) 0.6%
3 Amidomethicone (Bonding Agent) 1%
4 Aluminium powder, spherical, 20 μm, (Thermic Agent) 10%
5 Ammonium perchlorate, spherical, 200 μm (Oxidant) 60.0%
-
No need guess about VLM, the patent is out there:
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=US&NR=2012234196A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=3&date=20120920&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP#
(https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=US&NR=2012234196A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=3&date=20120920&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP#)
That just gives me blank pages. I tried searching for US2012234196, but couldn't find anything. I can read the claims though. Here's the combination given in the patent. Uses the same fuel and oxidiser as your standard solid propellant, but with different additives.
1 Polydimethylsiloxane (Carrier-fluid) 28.4%
2 Castor Oil Derivative (thickener) 0.6%
3 Amidomethicone (Bonding Agent) 1%
4 Aluminium powder, spherical, 20 μm (Thermic Agent) 10%
5 Ammonium perchlorate, spherical, 200 μm (Oxidant) 60.0%
-
No need guess about VLM, the patent is out there:
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=US&NR=2012234196A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=3&date=20120920&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP#
(https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=US&NR=2012234196A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=3&date=20120920&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP#)
That just gives me blank pages. I tried searching for US2012234196, but couldn't find anything. I can read the claims though. Here's the combination given in the patent. Uses the same fuel and oxidiser as your standard solid propellant, but with different additives.
1 Polydimethylsiloxane (Carrier-fluid) 28.4%
2 Castor Oil Derivative (thickener) 0.6%
3 Amidomethicone (Bonding Agent) 1%
4 Aluminium powder, spherical, 20 μm (Thermic Agent) 10%
5 Ammonium perchlorate, spherical, 200 μm (Oxidant) 60.0%
This link is easier to read the patent in, and it lists quite a broad range of VLM propellant ingredients and percentages, so apparently quite a range of ingredients and combinations are covered by the patent.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20120234196
The particular combination listed above, though, is quite similar to a typical AP/HTPB based solid propellant mix in its pre-cured state, ie 70% solids (as compared to low to mid 80's achievable in a similar solid, IIRC) and the liquid carrier agent replacing the HTPB binder (which starts out as a liquid in the mixing/casting process before curing). So it's quite like a solid propellant in its liquid pre-cured state. Just with a slightly lower solids loading to improve flowability, I would guess.
-
That just gives me blank pages. I tried searching for US2012234196, but couldn't find anything. I can read the claims though. Here's the combination given in the patent. Uses the same fuel and oxidiser as your standard solid propellant, but with different additives.
1 Polydimethylsiloxane (Carrier-fluid) 28.4%
2 Castor Oil Derivative (thickener) 0.6%
3 Amidomethicone (Bonding Agent) 1%
4 Aluminium powder, spherical, 20 μm (Thermic Agent) 10%
5 Ammonium perchlorate, spherical, 200 μm (Oxidant) 60.0%
So although it's technically a liquid it's got an Isp like a solid?
I think perspective is quite important here. IIRC monoprops get around 220s but solids go 250-260s so while that's not great as a liquid that's excellent compared to most monoprop propellants.
-
So although it's technically a liquid it's got an Isp like a solid?
The Isp will approach a comparable solid, but can't quite get there because the solids loading can't be as high, so they can't add the last, say, 5% more aluminum and 10% more AP that a solid would have, which are the most energetic components. So, as a rough estimate, you could expect an energy deficit of 15-20% or so as compared to a solid with similar composition (for the AP/Aluminum VLM formulation listed above).
The resulting reduced solids loading required for flowability leaves you with a slightly "watered down" version of an uncured solid propellant mix that, instead of using R-45 monomer (the HTPB precursor) which is quite viscous, you may be able to use (I would guess) a less viscous carrier fluid that flows more readily.
-
So although it's technically a liquid it's got an Isp like a solid?
The Isp will approach a comparable solid, but can't quite get there because the solids loading can't be as high, so they can't add the last, say, 5% more aluminum and 10% more AP that a solid would have, which are the most energetic components. So, as a rough estimate, you could expect an energy deficit of 15-20% or so as compared to a solid with similar composition (for the AP/Aluminum VLM formulation listed above).
The resulting reduced solids loading required for flowability leaves you with a slightly "watered down" version of an uncured solid propellant mix that, instead of using R-45 monomer (the HTPB precursor) which is quite viscous, you may be able to use (I would guess) a less viscous carrier fluid that flows more readily.
I guess it depends what you want. Pressure fed hypergols are (IIRC) good for about 330x. OTOH they are more complex, need a pressurizer (although I think the French have done work with GN2 in the props, like 2 fizzy soda cans) and can have slosh concerns at larger sizes.
The usual rule of rocket design lore is the higher the stage the higher the Isp you want. ButBlack Arrow used the "Waxwing" solid to get something like 3-4000m/s of its needed delta v.
TBH I'm surprised no one has had a go at doing a small pumped US using the sort of technology John Whitehead's team developed at LLNL.
-
So although it's technically a liquid it's got an Isp like a solid?
The Isp will approach a comparable solid, but can't quite get there because the solids loading can't be as high, so they can't add the last, say, 5% more aluminum and 10% more AP that a solid would have, which are the most energetic components. So, as a rough estimate, you could expect an energy deficit of 15-20% or so as compared to a solid with similar composition (for the AP/Aluminum VLM formulation listed above).
The resulting reduced solids loading required for flowability leaves you with a slightly "watered down" version of an uncured solid propellant mix that, instead of using R-45 monomer (the HTPB precursor) which is quite viscous, you may be able to use (I would guess) a less viscous carrier fluid that flows more readily.
I guess it depends what you want. Pressure fed hypergols are (IIRC) good for about 330x. OTOH they are more complex, need a pressurizer (although I think the French have done work with GN2 in the props, like 2 fizzy soda cans) and can have slosh concerns at larger sizes.
The usual rule of rocket design lore is the higher the stage the higher the Isp you want. ButBlack Arrow used the "Waxwing" solid to get something like 3-4000m/s of its needed delta v.
TBH I'm surprised no one has had a go at doing a small pumped US using the sort of technology John Whitehead's team developed at LLNL.
You mean a non electric pumped bipropellant US, or more specifically a (electric?) reciprocating pump bipropellant US?
-
No need guess about VLM, the patent is out there:
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=US&NR=2012234196A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=3&date=20120920&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP#
(https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=US&NR=2012234196A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=3&date=20120920&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP#)
That just gives me blank pages. I tried searching for US2012234196, but couldn't find anything. I can read the claims though. Here's the combination given in the patent. Uses the same fuel and oxidiser as your standard solid propellant, but with different additives.
1 Polydimethylsiloxane (Carrier-fluid) 28.4%
2 Castor Oil Derivative (thickener) 0.6%
3 Amidomethicone (Bonding Agent) 1%
4 Aluminium powder, spherical, 20 μm (Thermic Agent) 10%
5 Ammonium perchlorate, spherical, 200 μm (Oxidant) 60.0%
200um solid particles are terrible to valves. Slurry propellants are experimental since 1940s but not operational up to now.
Operational green monopropellants (aside of HTP) are usually ADN or HAN based solutions, e.g. AF-M315E.
-
200um solid particles are terrible to valves. .....
Not necessarily, depending entirely on flow rate and construction material. At fairly low flow rates (less than tens of meters/sec, whatever that may be in your language, and then some) most stainless steels will cope long enough for the associated rocket motor to run for however long it was designed to run for. How long is that? Minutes??
-
200um solid particles are terrible to valves. .....
Not necessarily, depending entirely on flow rate and construction material. At fairly low flow rates (less than tens of meters/sec, whatever that may be in your language, and then some) most stainless steels will cope long enough for the associated rocket motor to run for however long it was designed to run for. How long is that? Minutes??
When valves are shut off after opening, particles could be trapped between seal surfaces and cause leak.
Especially for low thrust engines, the whole valve orifice diameter is less than 5mm...
Compared to outstanding performance of AF-M315E, it's not worth the trouble.
-
Peter Beck (@Peter_J_Beck) tweeted at 5:08 AM on Sat, Apr 14, 2018:
As you would expect...Available in the online store soon. #ItsBusinessTime https://t.co/rXNCGOnxF8
(https://twitter.com/Peter_J_Beck/status/984840832485212160?s=03)
To get the joke listen to Fly Conchords Business Time song.
NB: Should be launching on Wednesday not Friday.
-
You mean a non electric pumped bipropellant US, or more specifically a (electric?) reciprocating pump bipropellant US?
I was thinking of a GG driven reciprocating pump but, now you mention it, if you've got the battery technology a simple reciprocating pump (which seems to be a better fit for systems < 5000lbs of thrust) would be a good choice.
One thing I've not seen considered would be a reciprocating pump with 2 chambers driven by a single solenoid, possibly as a resonant system. I think modern power electronics is up to the job.
-
200um solid particles are terrible to valves. Slurry propellants are experimental since 1940s but not operational up to now.
Operational green monopropellants (aside of HTP) are usually ADN or HAN based solutions, e.g. AF-M315E.
Indeed, like their cousins, gel propellants. Often proposed but never quite worth the extra effort.
That said I'm thinking some kind of valve seal that (somehow) squeezes out the remaining droplets?
Some sort of "roll" seal?
-
It says proprietary, but it's been sitting out on the FCC's public database for four months. Rocket Lab put an Iridium radio on their third stage.
-
One thing I've not seen considered would be a reciprocating pump with 2 chambers driven by a single solenoid, possibly as a resonant system. I think modern power electronics is up to the job.
Solenoids are terrible in terms of weight and power efficiency.
They are basically a motor, optimised for simplicity, disregarding everything else.
In almost all applications they've been displaced by geared motors, for this reason.
Basically a motor is a solenoid, it's just optimised for tiny gaps where solenoids are most efficient, and zero accelerating parts, and pulls rotationally, not linearly. The fact you can gear it so that ten thousand 'pulls' are used instead of one big one means you can shrink the mass by around ten thousand times.
-
200um solid particles are terrible to valves. Slurry propellants are experimental since 1940s but not operational up to now.
Operational green monopropellants (aside of HTP) are usually ADN or HAN based solutions, e.g. AF-M315E.
Indeed, like their cousins, gel propellants. Often proposed but never quite worth the extra effort.
That said I'm thinking some kind of valve seal that (somehow) squeezes out the remaining droplets?
Some sort of "roll" seal?
Ball valves work this way, they are better for the job.
-
Not sure if this has been posted before. There was some earlier information that Rocket Lab had a SBIRS contract to test AFTS on its initial flight, this just gives a little more detail on the source of the AFTS:
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FAA-2013-0259-1612
More specifically, Rocket Lab will be carrying onboard the Electron launch vehicle on its inaugural launch a flight test experiment for NASA Kennedy Space Center which will improve public risk mitigation capabilities from an errant launch vehicle. This component is designed and manufactured by NASA KSC and is part of the independent safety system which will be installed on the launch vehicles. This safety system will be capable of determining if the flight of the launch vehicle will pose an unacceptable increased risk to the public based on mission rules designed for its unique vehicle and flight characteristics and programmed into the safety system and terminate the flight of such launch vehicle. This type of capability is in public interest because this safety system will allow for improved protection of the public from mishaps resulting from flight of errant launch vehicles.
-
What it's really like to work at Rocket Lab
21 Apr, 2018 5:00am
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12036457
Includes interviews with:
Naomi Altman: Head of avionics
Daniel Gillies: Mission management & integration director
Shaun D'Mello: VP of launch
Izaak Connaughton: Range safety & regulatory affairs
-
Is "maybe in May" still the best launch estimate? I'm going to be wandering around NZ that month.
-
Is "maybe in May" still the best launch estimate? I'm going to be wandering around NZ that month.
Visible Area is closed to non residents during launches. However i understand that they are mulling about building visitor viewing area in the future. There is information on there website (Mahia Information | Rocket Lab (https://www.rocketlabusa.com/launch/mahia-information/)) regarding accessible areas. Closure information for road and such is posted about a week before launch.
-
Is "maybe in May" still the best launch estimate? I'm going to be wandering around NZ that month.
Visible Area is closed to non residents during launches. However i understand that they are mulling about building visitor viewing area in the future. There is information on there website regarding accessible areas.
No landbased public viewing options yet. Your best option at present is from water if anybody is offering viewing charters.
Worth visiting outside launch dates just to see how rugged and remote this launch location is. Just remember to keep left on those gravel roads, or you might run into RL employee.
-
A release to the media:
Rocket Lab integrates payloads for first ever NASA Venture Class Launch Services Mission
Huntington Beach, California and Auckland, New Zealand. April 25, 2018:
Rocket Lab and NASA have carried out the integration of the CubeSat payloads scheduled to launch on the Electron rocket in the first half of 2018 for NASA’s first ever Venture Class Launch Services (VCLS) mission. The flight will constitute the smallest class of dedicated launch services used by NASA and marks a significant milestone for Rocket Lab in providing such access to space for a NASA-sponsored mission of small satellites.
The launch is manifested with innovative research and development payloads from NASA and educational institutions that will conduct a wide variety of new, on-orbit science. Applications of the CubeSats booked on the mission include research such as measuring radiation in the Van Allen belts to understand their impact on spacecraft, through to monitoring space weather.
“We’re incredibly excited to be launching NASA’s first Venture Class mission,” says Rocket Lab founder and CEO Peter Beck. “The VCLS contract by NASA’s Launch Services Program is very forward-thinking and a direct response to the small satellite industry’s changing needs for rapid and repeatable access to orbit. The oversight NASA has provided as part of this contract has been tremendously valuable for us.”
Big ideas used to require big rockets, but thanks to the miniaturization of technology, the small satellites of today can conduct innovative science that helps us better understand the Earth and our universe. Before Rocket Lab’s Electron vehicle, launch opportunities for small satellites were mostly limited to rideshare-type arrangements on large launch vehicles, flying only when space was available on NASA and other launches. This can be impractical for some small satellite payloads, as they are at the mercy of the primary payload’s schedule and desired orbit. Rocket Lab’s Electron is the only private, small launch vehicle currently flying to orbit and offering the dedicated flights tailored to these small payloads.
“Venture Class launches are about freeing small satellite payloads from the barriers they currently face in trying to access space on larger launch platforms as secondary payloads. It’s fantastic to see NASA enabling this change and embracing private small launch vehicles like Electron,” adds Mr. Beck.
Ten CubeSats manifested on the mission are receiving their access to space through a NASA initiative called the CubeSat Launch Initiative (CSLI) and are part of the 19th Educational Launch of Nanosatellites, or ELaNa-19. The program recognizes that CubeSats are playing an increasingly larger role in exploration, technology demonstration, scientific research and educational investigations. These miniature satellites provide a low-cost platform for both research and commercial applications, including planetary space exploration; Earth observation; Earth and space science; and developing precursor science instruments like laser communications, satellite-to-satellite communications and autonomous movement capabilities.
The recent payload integration process, which took place at Rocket Lab USA’s facility in Huntington Beach, California, involves conducting final spacecraft checks and preparations before the CubeSats are loaded into dispensers that protect the payloads during launch, then deploy them from the Electron vehicle once in low Earth orbit. The integrated payloads will be shipped to New Zealand for mating onto the Electron launch vehicle in coming weeks, before a launch from Rocket Lab’s private orbital launch facility, Launch Complex 1.
-
Maybe NASA TV will be covering this and other VCLS from NZ.
-
In mid April (the 12th) RocketLab's FAA launch license was revised for the second time.
Originally issued on 2017-05-15 and good for 2 years, it covered 3 Electron launches of inert payloads from the Mahia Peninsula launch site and along a flight azimuth of 174o (limits them to polar/SSO orbit launches).
Revision 1: Effected 2017-11-30 in the run up to launch #2. It changed the license terms to allow flying of multiple, paying customer payloads on the 2 remaining flights instead of just an inert payload each time.
Revision 2: Effected 2018-04-12. It removes the 3 launch limit from the license and allows an unspecified number of Electron flights along a launch azimuth of 176o (minor change from previous azimuth, but still only going to polar orbits). It also added ~7.5 months to the term length of the license which now expires 2018-12-31 instead of in mid-May. Lastly, some "Special Reporting Requirements" were added/modified (I don't have a copy of the previous version to see exactly what the change was and it's not specified in the revision notes).
Direct link to .pdf of the new FAA license (https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/licenses_permits/media/LLS%2017-095%20-%20Rev%202%20-%20Rocket%20Lab%20USA%20-%20License%20and%20Orders%20(FINAL%202018-04-12%20Signed).pdf)
-
Look what I found - Rocket Lab's half tank test stand:
(https://i.imgur.com/Up68xNd.jpg)
If you don't recognize it, it's this:-
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/mjKp__DfpeY/maxresdefault.jpg)
Found these a while back, more than a year ago:
Original Rocket Lab test stand:
(https://i.imgur.com/i5NMMUx.png)
This one:
(https://qz.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/rutherford-test-fire-feature.png?w=1514)
Upgraded new test stand:
(https://i.imgur.com/NNhOQAp.jpg)
(https://www.rocketlabusa.com/assets/Uploads/Share-test-fire2.jpg)
-
What is it?
-
Has anyone ever figured out why Electron does a first stage hold down acceptance/qualification test prior to flight with a short propellant tank? Just looking back at those test pictures above (and first stage ones too) and wondering why this is.
-
Has anyone ever figured out why Electron does a first stage hold down acceptance/qualification test prior to flight with a short propellant tank? Just looking back at those test pictures above (and first stage ones too) and wondering why this is.
Maybe it's easier to manage? After all, this isn't a WDR or static fire or anything like that: it's an engine test - and rocket fuel doesn't grow on trees. After the test, the engines need to return to Auckland for integration and the whole rocket then shipped to Mahia, so perhaps there's no benefit is using a full-sized prop tank.
-
Rocket Lab is facing some environmental challenge about dumping stages / batteries that might hit whales:
Straterra considers a light-hearted approach has been taken to discussing effects on, for example, marine mammals. While the chances of a whale being hit by space junk must be considered very small, the consequence for any whale that is hit is going to be extreme.
The impact on a pod of migrating whales, e.g., of mothers and suckling calves, from a space junk strike would have a significant impact at the population level of the affected species, as well as on the individuals.
As to space junk narrowly missing marine mammals, one may expect the survivors to suffer psychological trauma (to the extent that this can be determine).
-
Rocket Lab is facing some environmental challenge about dumping stages / batteries that might hit whales:
Straterra considers a light-hearted approach has been taken to discussing effects on, for example, marine mammals. While the chances of a whale being hit by space junk must be considered very small, the consequence for any whale that is hit is going to be extreme.
The impact on a pod of migrating whales, e.g., of mothers and suckling calves, from a space junk strike would have a significant impact at the population level of the affected species, as well as on the individuals.
As to space junk narrowly missing marine mammals, one may expect the survivors to suffer psychological trauma (to the extent that this can be determine).
this would probably get thrown out as most stages fail on reentry and are heavily ripped apart on ocean impact. Plus they have had several decades to sue so the statute of limitations, where applicable, would result in the case being thrown out.
-
Rocket Lab is facing some environmental challenge about dumping stages / batteries that might hit whales:
Straterra considers a light-hearted approach has been taken to discussing effects on, for example, marine mammals. While the chances of a whale being hit by space junk must be considered very small, the consequence for any whale that is hit is going to be extreme.
The impact on a pod of migrating whales, e.g., of mothers and suckling calves, from a space junk strike would have a significant impact at the population level of the affected species, as well as on the individuals.
As to space junk narrowly missing marine mammals, one may expect the survivors to suffer psychological trauma (to the extent that this can be determine).
Surely this unsourced and specious comment is an irrelevant joke.
Assuming one were to calculate and ignore the extremely minuscule probability of such an occurrence, or the existence of intolerable psychological trauma in marine mammals, can you name an organization who would take action against Rocketlabs?
-
Rocket Lab is facing some environmental challenge about dumping stages / batteries that might hit whales:
Straterra considers a light-hearted approach has been taken to discussing effects on, for example, marine mammals. While the chances of a whale being hit by space junk must be considered very small, the consequence for any whale that is hit is going to be extreme.
The impact on a pod of migrating whales, e.g., of mothers and suckling calves, from a space junk strike would have a significant impact at the population level of the affected species, as well as on the individuals.
As to space junk narrowly missing marine mammals, one may expect the survivors to suffer psychological trauma (to the extent that this can be determine).
Surely this unsourced and specious comment is an irrelevant joke.
Assuming one were to calculate and ignore the extremely minuscule probability of such an occurrence, or the existence of intolerable psychological trauma in marine mammals, can you name an organization who would take action against Rocketlabs?
appears to be from http://www.straterra.co.nz/assets/Straterra-submission-to-MfE-on-proposed-regulation-of-jettisoned-Sept-2016.pdf
-
My interpretation of that is that they are not really concerned about the whales etc. or the rocket debris. They are trying to get onerous regulations regarding seismic surveys (and attendant damage to whale communications or hearing) softened. They basically say the two things should be regulated the same way, preferably lightly. There is a substantial conflict of interest apparent in this document.
-
Ah
Stratera is worried that weekly launches, with deadly debris just raining from the sky, will massively inconvenience those dedicated Japanese and Norwegian marine scientists doing such important research on the health of our precious, precious whales by disecting them.
-
Ah
Stratera is worried that weekly launches, with deadly debris just raining from the sky, will massively inconvenience those dedicated Japanese and Norwegian marine scientists doing such important research on the health of our precious, precious whales by disecting them.
Weekly NOTAM would rule out the existance of Japanese and Norwegian science ships in certain nature reserve area.
-
Ah
Stratera is worried that weekly launches, with deadly debris just raining from the sky, will massively inconvenience those dedicated Japanese and Norwegian marine scientists doing such important research on the health of our precious, precious whales by disecting them.
Weekly NOTAM would rule out the existance of Japanese and Norwegian science ships in certain nature reserve area.
1. NOTAM = NOtice To AirMen. Ship captains don't read them.
2. Most likely Comga was joking..
-
Ah
Stratera is worried that weekly launches, with deadly debris just raining from the sky, will massively inconvenience those dedicated Japanese and Norwegian marine scientists doing such important research on the health of our precious, precious whales by disecting them.
Weekly NOTAM would rule out the existance of Japanese and Norwegian science ships in certain nature reserve area.
1. NOTAM = NOtice To AirMen. Ship captains don't read them.
2. Most likely Comga was joking..
Yeah, but they publish NOTMARs too. NOTMAR= NOtices To MARiners.
-
Ah
Stratera is worried that weekly launches, with deadly debris just raining from the sky, will massively inconvenience those dedicated Japanese and Norwegian marine scientists doing such important research on the health of our precious, precious whales by disecting them.
Weekly NOTAM would rule out the existance of Japanese and Norwegian science ships in certain nature reserve area.
1. NOTAM = NOtice To AirMen. Ship captains don't read them.
2. Most likely Comga was joking..
2: Ya think?
"..deadly debris just raining from the sky"
"dedicated... marine scientists..."
That's not joking.
It's SARCASM
In case you missed it...
Repeating "Japanese and Norwegian science ships" makes me think you did.
Refer back to Phil Stooke's post
I tried to calculate the odds of a single occurrence in a decade with all assumptions maxed out.
It required scientific notation with a large negative exponent.
This stuff is specious garbage with an agenda.
And here I was hoping this was a post about the next Electron launch...
-
2. Most likely Comga was joking..
2: Ya think?
"..deadly debris just raining from the sky"
"dedicated... marine scientists..."
That's not joking.
It's SARCASM
Hey, far be it from me to put words in your mouth..
-
Weekly NOTAM would rule out the existance of Japanese and Norwegian science ships in certain nature reserve area.
1. NOTAM = NOtice To AirMen. Ship captains don't read them.
2. Most likely Comga was joking..
Yeah, but they publish NOTMARs too. NOTMAR= NOtices To MARiners.
Yeah, I'm aware of that. Ship captains don't read them either (unless a) they're bored or b) they really have to).
It's SARCASM
Couldn't have said it better myself. ;D
-
Hey, you know you have made it as a launch company when you get your own forum section on NSF right? :D
-
Hey, you know you have made it as a launch company when you get your own forum section on NSF right? :D
Yes, but shouldn't be in the "U.S." section in my opinion.
- Ed Kyle
-
Hey, you know you have made it as a launch company when you get your own forum section on NSF right? :D
Yes, but shouldn't be in the "U.S." section in my opinion.
- Ed Kyle
Tell that to RocketLab
Rocket Lab is an American company with headquarters in Los Angeles and a wholly-owned New Zealand subsidiary.
https://www.rocketlabusa.com/frequently-asked-questions/
-
Hey, you know you have made it as a launch company when you get your own forum section on NSF right? :D
Yes, but shouldn't be in the "U.S." section in my opinion.
- Ed Kyle
Even though the initial launch site is in New Zealand, The majority of the rocket is manufactured in the US with a complete US Production line starting soon now that RL's US launch sites are now official on their site: https://www.rocketlabusa.com/launch/launch-sites/
-
Hey, you know you have made it as a launch company when you get your own forum section on NSF right? :D
Yes, but shouldn't be in the "U.S." section in my opinion.
- Ed Kyle
Tell that to RocketLab
Rocket Lab is an American company with headquarters in Los Angeles and a wholly-owned New Zealand subsidiary.
https://www.rocketlabusa.com/frequently-asked-questions/ (https://www.rocketlabusa.com/frequently-asked-questions/)
That
Plus this section is "Commercial and US Government Launch Vehicles" NOT "US Commercial and Government Launch Vehicles". Rocketlab is certainly not Russian, ESA, Japanese, Chinese, or Indian, nor does it belong with "Other..."
This seems an excellent place for the Rocketlab section
And yes, Beittil, with only one successful launch, far less than Israel, even less than the North Koreans and Iranians, getting their own section in NSF is a recognition of significance to the launch marketplace to which we pay attention.
YMMV, Jim et. al.
-
Even though the initial launch site is in New Zealand, The majority of the rocket is manufactured in the US with a complete US Production line starting soon now that RL's US launch sites are now official on their site: https://www.rocketlabusa.com/launch/launch-sites/
Soon maybe, but not yet I believe, and I haven't found information on where, exactly, items have been manufactured up to now except for many images of rockets in New Zealand. They are still hiring for Huntington Beach. Propulsion production engineers. Test engineers. Receptionists. Etc.
Design, R&D, final assembly, test, and launch is still in New Zealand.
- Ed Kyle
-
http://www.rocketlabusa.com/news/updates/rocket-lab-reaches-500-rutherford-engine-test-fires/
Rutherford engines are manufactured at Rocket Lab’s headquarters in California, USA, and shipped to Auckland, New Zealand for testing before integration with the Electron launch vehicle and eventual launch from Rocket Lab’s own orbital launch facility, Launch Complex-1, on the Māhia peninsula.
-
http://www.rocketlabusa.com/news/updates/rocket-lab-reaches-500-rutherford-engine-test-fires/
Rutherford engines are manufactured at Rocket Lab’s headquarters in California, USA, and shipped to Auckland, New Zealand for testing before integration with the Electron launch vehicle and eventual launch from Rocket Lab’s own orbital launch facility, Launch Complex-1, on the Māhia peninsula.
RL operate from 2,521m2 of factory space at 3A Airpark Drive, Mangere, Auckland, and have never had the space nor the resources to make the large numbers of engines they need there. It seems Peter Beck (and others on the RL team) has spent much of his recent life flying back and forwards between NZ and the USA.
Like Ed said: "Design, R&D, final assembly, test, and launch is still in New Zealand." Auckland and Mahia respectively.
EDIT: (Source: https://www.qv.co.nz/property/3a-airpark-drive-mangere-auckland-2022/2374752)
-
Like Ed said: "Design, R&D, final assembly, test, and launch is still in New Zealand." Auckland and Mahia respectively.
Much like Antares, which is largely manufactured in Russia/Ukraine, but sees final assembly in Virginia. If Antares is a "U.S." launch vehicle, isn't Electron a "New Zealand" rocket still?
- Ed Kyle
-
Like Ed said: "Design, R&D, final assembly, test, and launch is still in New Zealand." Auckland and Mahia respectively.
Much like Antares, which is largely manufactured in Russia/Ukraine, but sees final assembly in Virginia. If Antares is a "U.S." launch vehicle, isn't Electron a "New Zealand" rocket still?
- Ed Kyle
I was told by someone on another site that rockets for US launches will be built in the US and rockets for NZ launches will eventually be produced and built entirely in NZ so that would be 2 independent production flows if proven to be correct information.
-
Like Ed said: "Design, R&D, final assembly, test, and launch is still in New Zealand." Auckland and Mahia respectively.
Much like Antares, which is largely manufactured in Russia/Ukraine, but sees final assembly in Virginia. If Antares is a "U.S." launch vehicle, isn't Electron a "New Zealand" rocket still?
- Ed Kyle
My Toyota Camry was assembled in Kentucky. Is it an American car? Most people would say it's Japanese because it was designed and developed in Japan by a Japanese company.
Antares is an American launch vehicle even though many components are built overseas. Orion is an American spacecraft even though the service module is built in Europe.
Electron is an odd case, being developed in New Zealand by an American-based company. It's really a joint American-New Zealand project. Since it's being operated in New Zealand by an American company, it's going to be regulated by both countries.
So, why is this question so important? Shouldn't we be discussing the rocket instead of trivia?
-
It's in this section because that's what we decided. End of conversation. :)
-
Electron is an odd case, being developed in New Zealand by an American-based company. It's really a joint American-New Zealand project. Since it's being operated in New Zealand by an American company, it's going to be regulated by both countries.
So, why is this question so important? Shouldn't we be discussing the rocket instead of trivia?
Just to clear up any misconceptions:
Electron is an odd case, because it was developed in New Zealand by a New Zealand company using American assistance. Peter Beck and his team had Electron designed and at least one prototype built long before the American-based company called "Rocketlab USA" existed. For technology support, regulatory and a few other reasons the New Zealand company is now American-based. That's what makes it "really a joint American-New Zealand project."
Why is this question so important? Because it indicates to those of us outside of the continental United States that it IS indeed possible to develop a sucessful indigenous launch capability within a rapidly-developing regulatory minefield whilst highlighting both (a) the size and location of a few of the mines and (b) the path they used to navigate around them.
-
Yay!
Rocket Lab ✔ @RocketLab
We're thrilled to confirm we're building a US launch site for Electron. Four space ports are shortlisted: Cape Canaveral, Wallops Flight Facility, Pacific Spaceport Complex – Alaska and Vandenberg Air Force Base. Confirmed site to be announced in August. http://www.rocketlabusa.com/news/updates/rocket-lab-to-expand-launch-capability-with-us-launch-site/ …
4:53 PM - Jul 10, 2018
https://twitter.com/RocketLab/status/1016787505436188672?s=19
-
My best guess is that in August, Rocket Lab will choose to launch from Cape Canaveral.
Not sure which area on the Cape they'll use for LC-2.
-
Peter Beck had another interview on TMRO space. Link to video: https://youtu.be/mFioCS17Vt8
-
My best guess is that in August, Rocket Lab will choose to launch from Cape Canaveral.
Not sure which area on the Cape they'll use for LC-2.
Cape Canaveral already has an "LC 2".
http://www.robsv.com/cape/c1.html
- Ed Kyle
-
Peter Beck had another interview on TMRO space. Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFioCS17Vt8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFioCS17Vt8)
What I was most hoping to hear was a timeframe for the next launch.
Beck’s reticence to give one was only surpassed only by his smiling refusal to disclose Curie’s mystery green propellant.
We will just have to “stay tuned.”
-
Yet another set of engines roll off the production line, looks like the team might beat our 100 engine target for this year.
https://twitter.com/peter_j_beck/status/1029617348234293254
-
Yet another set of engines roll off the production line, looks like the team might beat our 100 engine target for this year.
https://twitter.com/peter_j_beck/status/1029617348234293254
Now all they have to do is launch them..
The way they've hung the flag from the roof looks exactly the same as the one at SpaceX. Is this just something you guys just do in factories over there to remind you which country you're in - or should we read more into it?
-
The way they've hung the flag from the roof looks exactly the same as the one at SpaceX. Is this just something you guys just do in factories over there to remind you which country you're in - or should we read more into it?
No accident that the flag is in the frame. Clearly, Rocket Lab is reminding that it is a "U.S." company. The reasons should be obvious to anyone who follows this business.
Displayed flags are common among the players.
https://hiveminer.com/Tags/icps%2Cula
https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/atlas-v-arrives-at-spaceflight-operations-center
https://www.satellitetoday.com/government-military/2016/06/23/us-navy-lockheed-martin-ready-launch-muos-5-satellite/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/132466114@N03/33309742286
They're at the factories. They're at the launch sites. They're on the rockets. They're on the flight suits.
- Ed Kyle
-
The way they've hung the flag from the roof looks exactly the same as the one at SpaceX. Is this just something you guys just do in factories over there to remind you which country you're in - or should we read more into it?
No accident that the flag is in the frame. Clearly, Rocket Lab is reminding that it is a "U.S." company. The reasons should be obvious to anyone who follows this business.
Displayed flags are common among the players.
https://hiveminer.com/Tags/icps%2Cula
https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/atlas-v-arrives-at-spaceflight-operations-center
https://www.satellitetoday.com/government-military/2016/06/23/us-navy-lockheed-martin-ready-launch-muos-5-satellite/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/132466114@N03/33309742286
They're at the factories. They're at the launch sites. They're on the rockets. They're on the flight suits.
- Ed Kyle
Not just common, but ubiquitous. Every US rocket factory has them...
Virgin Orbit:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXUScfcVQAA9m26.jpg
Blue Origin:
https://img.purch.com/w/660/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5zcGFjZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kvMDAwLzA1My85OTMvb3JpZ2luYWwvYmx1ZS1vcmlnaW4uanBn
Orbital ATK/NGIS:
https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/gfx/news/hires/2014/antarescomme.jpg
ULA:
http://www.madeinalabama.com/assets/2014/07/Decatur_AtlasV-1200x1553.jpg
SpaceX:
https://media.glassdoor.com/l/61/41/44/79/production-floor.jpg
Virgin Galactic:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/technology/2017/06/01/New_VirginGalactic_0055-R_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqfJ6CG4nrs1Imk5-mMOX8ln6N3udfTYjqxsq-qyc4k7U.jpg?imwidth=450
-
Hey guys. When I was looking at the limitations of SpaceX launch sites on another thread, the thought occurred to me: Could SpaceX one day fly out from Mahia, NZ? Distance from LA to Cape Canaveral or Brownsville is about 9000km by barge via the panama canal. NZ is about 10,000km from LA. So, roughly the same. Forgive me if this has been asked before. :-)
-
Hey guys. When I was looking at the limitations of SpaceX launch sites on another thread, the thought occurred to me: Could SpaceX one day fly out from Mahia, NZ? Distance from LA to Cape Canaveral or Brownsville is about 9000km by barge via the panama canal. NZ is about 10,000km from LA. So, roughly the same. Forgive me if this has been asked before. :-)
I'm pretty sure SpaceX transports their vehicles by land, (ok, except for returning landed stages).
-
Hey guys. When I was looking at the limitations of SpaceX launch sites on another thread, the thought occurred to me: Could SpaceX one day fly out from Mahia, NZ? Distance from LA to Cape Canaveral or Brownsville is about 9000km by barge via the panama canal. NZ is about 10,000km from LA. So, roughly the same. Forgive me if this has been asked before. :-)
Not likely. Think SpaceX will operated an Oceanic ASDS out of Wellington Harbour if they established P2P service to NZ.
-
I'm pretty sure SpaceX transports their vehicles by land, (ok, except for returning landed stages).
I'm pretty sure the BFR will be transported by sea... It's a very large vehicle, so it has to go the long way via the Panama Canal.
-
I don't know the exact travel times from LA to the cape via Panama. But I wouldn't be surprised if it is actually *quicker* to get to NZ from LA. There's no canal to slow you down.
But would a Mahia launch site provide any advantages over Cape Canaveral or Brownsville? Less sea and air traffic to worry about? Less bureaucracy?
-
Another slightly O.T. post. Electron is using Elertric Pumpfeed Rutherforth engines. The batteries have a considerable weight during launch. I think battery mass limits their launch capability. So their launch capability will increase with advancement in battery technology.
But what if they want to increase launch capability faster than battery technology advances?
- Could they go for a hybrid system, aka replacing the batteries with a small combustion generator?
- Or could they develop Rutherfords into a pressure feed engines, that are feed by a shared turbo-pump assembly?
I know Rocketlabs wants to keep Electron small and cheap. My thoughts are for a slightly larger more capable launcher that will be the second launch vehicle for Rocketlabs.
-
Well, maybe they can have a HTP turbine driving an electric generator!
-
Another slightly O.T. post. Electron is using Elertric Pumpfeed Rutherforth engines. The batteries have a considerable weight during launch. I think battery mass limits their launch capability.
It doesn't.
The battery mass is not a critical factor.
The high ISP pretty much totally makes up for it, as well as the fact you can drop batteries as they are used.
A worked estimate comparing replacing F9 engines with Rutherford (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44912.msg1796347).
It is arguable for that case, counting battery and possibly engine module jettisoning that the penalty to GTO is less than one ton.
T:W is 30, not 170, yes. But, remember that for the first stage, you need to add 10 tons to have a 1 ton impact on payload.
And also that most of the first stage is not engines, even at T:W of 30.
Pumped rockets may also let you throw away a lot of subsystems and make some things easier - see above thread.
-
I don't know the exact travel times from LA to the cape via Panama. But I wouldn't be surprised if it is actually *quicker* to get to NZ from LA. There's no canal to slow you down.
But would a Mahia launch site provide any advantages over Cape Canaveral or Brownsville? Less sea and air traffic to worry about? Less bureaucracy?
This is not a SpaceX thread. The Mahia launch site was built and is operated by Rocket Lab for their small launch vehicles. If you think SpaceX needs to look for more launch sites please use one of the threads in the SpaceX section.
-
I don't know the exact travel times from LA to the cape via Panama. But I wouldn't be surprised if it is actually *quicker* to get to NZ from LA. There's no canal to slow you down.
But would a Mahia launch site provide any advantages over Cape Canaveral or Brownsville? Less sea and air traffic to worry about? Less bureaucracy?
This is not a SpaceX thread. The Mahia launch site was built and is operated by Rocket Lab for their small launch vehicles. If you think SpaceX needs to look for more launch sites please use one of the threads in the SpaceX section.
What gongora said...
I was SO hoping a post in this thread was a new launch date but it’s just chatter.
Frankly for an outfit that talks about hitting an operational pace one month after launch #2 this very long delay with no reason information doesn’t inspire confidence.
It’s downright concerning.
And hey, I know Rocketlabs has no interest in our being confident but it’s still odd.
If they have projected a date fit their customers why keep it confidential?
Surely the are as unconcerned with disappointing the public as they are unconcerned with informing us?
And if they still can’t set a date, whatever could the issue be?
-
I don't know the exact travel times from LA to the cape via Panama. But I wouldn't be surprised if it is actually *quicker* to get to NZ from LA. There's no canal to slow you down.
But would a Mahia launch site provide any advantages over Cape Canaveral or Brownsville? Less sea and air traffic to worry about? Less bureaucracy?
This is not a SpaceX thread. The Mahia launch site was built and is operated by Rocket Lab for their small launch vehicles. If you think SpaceX needs to look for more launch sites please use one of the threads in the SpaceX section.
What gongora said...
I was SO hoping a post in this thread was a new launch date but it’s just chatter.
Frankly for an outfit that talks about hitting an operational pace one month after launch #2 this very long delay with no reason information doesn’t inspire confidence.
It’s downright concerning.
And hey, I know Rocketlabs has no interest in our being confident but it’s still odd.
If they have projected a date fit their customers why keep it confidential?
Surely the are as unconcerned with disappointing the public as they are unconcerned with informing us?
And if they still can’t set a date, whatever could the issue be?
Uptil now they've had 1-2 year lead on competition, that is eroding fast. Both LauncherOne and Vector should fly in next 6 months with Relativity and Firefly a year or two away. 6-10 incident free flights before their competitors fly would really cement their lead, but thats not looking likely.
-
Uptil now they've had 1-2 year lead on competition, that is eroding fast. Both LauncherOne and Vector should fly in next 6 months with Relativity and Firefly a year or two away. 6-10 incident free flights before their competitors fly would really cement their lead, but thats not looking likely.
It doesn't take many months between each incident free flight to run the risk of wholly reusables disrupting the market too.
I really hope they get into gear soon, for any number of reasons from pushing rocket technology in weird directions to 'off the shelf' engines for landers and things.
-
Uptil now they've had 1-2 year lead on competition, that is eroding fast. Both LauncherOne and Vector should fly in next 6 months with Relativity and Firefly a year or two away. 6-10 incident free flights before their competitors fly would really cement their lead, but thats not looking likely.
It doesn't take many months between each incident free flight to run the risk of wholly reusables disrupting the market too.
I really hope they get into gear soon, for any number of reasons from pushing rocket technology in weird directions to 'off the shelf' engines for landers and things.
These small LV companies have done maths an decided that low cost high volume manufacturing is better option at these sizes than RLVs. Small LV don't have performance margins to allow for RLV, big LVs have upto 5% to play with, small LVs its 1-2%.
-
Uptil now they've had 1-2 year lead on competition, that is eroding fast. Both LauncherOne and Vector should fly in next 6 months with Relativity and Firefly a year or two away. 6-10 incident free flights before their competitors fly would really cement their lead, but thats not looking likely.
It doesn't take many months between each incident free flight to run the risk of wholly reusables disrupting the market too.
I really hope they get into gear soon, for any number of reasons from pushing rocket technology in weird directions to 'off the shelf' engines for landers and things.
These small LV companies have done maths an decided that low cost high volume manufacturing is better option at these sizes than RLVs. Small LV don't have performance margins to allow for RLV, big LVs have upto 5% to play with, small LVs its 1-2%.
To be clearer, larger RLV vendors with low operations costs.
-
So when the batteries are dropped, do they just end up at the bottom of the ocean?
-
So when the batteries are dropped, do they just end up at the bottom of the ocean?
Before someone makes some technically correct but useless comment about batteries not floating, what is your specific issue?
We have seen the batteries drop away during second stage flight.
There is no indication or reason to have anything on them like parachutes or beacons. They are dropped to save mass after being discharged.
Batteries are dense, so they will just drop along ballistic trajectories, getting some significant distance down range.
But they are far from orbital velocity, so they might not burn up. Is that your issue?
In a polar launch remnants might wind up on Antarctica. Is that what you meant?
Or the head of an endangered whale ;) (Inside joke about the protest filed)
-
So when the batteries are dropped, do they just end up at the bottom of the ocean?
Before someone makes some technically correct but useless comment about batteries not floating, what is your specific issue?
We have seen the batteries drop away during second stage flight.
There is no indication or reason to have anything on them like parachutes or beacons. They are dropped to save mass after being discharged.
Batteries are dense, so they will just drop along ballistic trajectories, getting some significant distance down range.
But they are far from orbital velocity, so they might not burn up. Is that your issue?
In a polar launch remnants might wind up on Antarctica. Is that what you meant?
Or the head of an endangered whale ;) (Inside joke about the protest filed)
Yeah, but What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good *battery* in the ocean after just one use? ;)
-
There‘s a difference between a battery and a rechargeable battery.
-
There‘s a difference between a battery and a rechargeable battery.
In this case, almost certainly not.
Lithium-ion is basically the only real option if you want a high energy lightweight battery that is mature, flight ready, simple to operate and can be discharged in one minute.
It is inherently rechargeable.
(which incidentally is nice for testing)
-
Yeah, but What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good *battery* in the ocean after just one use? ;)
Here's an idea: Buy 'Mr Steven' once SpX have finished with it and drive madly around the Pacific Ocean catching discarded batteries (and maybe the occasional fairing) in the net.
The captain must be highly experienced at playing Tetris. ;D
-
Before someone makes some technically correct but useless comment about batteries not floating, what is your specific issue?
We have seen the batteries drop away during second stage flight.
There is no indication or reason to have anything on them like parachutes or beacons. They are dropped to save mass after being discharged.
Batteries are dense, so they will just drop along ballistic trajectories, getting some significant distance down range.
But they are far from orbital velocity, so they might not burn up. Is that your issue?
In a polar launch remnants might wind up on Antarctica. Is that what you meant?
Or the head of an endangered whale ;) (Inside joke about the protest filed)
I guess I was just wondering whether RocketLab might not eventually evolve to a small conventional turbopump, and ditch the whole battery idea. It seems to me they've adopted their current technology approach to get their business model going more quickly and conveniently. But once they've got revenue flowing and a full manifest, then what's to prevent them from gradually evolving their vehicle with various improvements - including a conventional small turbopump?
They've said they don't want to do reusable - and that seems congruent with the idea of not evolving beyond electric turbopumps - but company heads say lots of things to throw off their competition, too. If they were to evolve to a small conventional turbopump, then that would remove a key barrier to seeking reusability. Maybe the turbopump would be the last thing to be changed, so as to avoid tipping off their intentions, and meanwhile they'd continue refining everything else in their launch stack, until they were ready to make the big switchover.
Again, RocketLab seem to have a disruptive approach - and disruptors have an intrinsic interest in masking their intentions, in order to ward off pre-emptive action from the more established competitors.
What's the chance of that happening?
-
I doubt it. They're more interested in innovating on-orbit. I wouldn't be surprised if they started buying launches from other companies!
-
They've said they don't want to do reusable - and that seems congruent with the idea of not evolving beyond electric turbopumps - but company heads say lots of things to throw off their competition, too. If they were to evolve to a small conventional turbopump, then that would remove a key barrier to seeking reusability
Err - what?
I don't see how the two are connected.
Electric seems to me if anything more reusable.
I did a rough analysis linked upthread a few posts, and came to the conclusion that it is perhaps scalable to F9 - with very limited payload hit compared to Merlin engines.
Yes, it needs a stupid number of engines.
That only does very, very good things from a reusability perspective.
-
I doubt it. They're more interested in innovating on-orbit. I wouldn't be surprised if they started buying launches from other companies!
Hmm.. not saying you're wrong, but I would. Peter Beck has been a model rocketry dude for decades (various iterations are stuck up on the back wall of the Auckland factory, remember?) and Electron is really just a large-scale model rocket and I can't seem him ever NOT getting excited every time one of his own creations heads skyward.
-
Hmm.. not saying you're wrong, but I would. Peter Beck has been a model rocketry dude for decades (various iterations are stuck up on the back wall of the Auckland factory, remember?) and Electron is really just a large-scale model rocket and I can't seem him ever NOT getting excited every time one of his own creations heads skyward.
Sure, but in terms of long term vision, he's more about on-orbit.
-
Before someone makes some technically correct but useless comment about batteries not floating, what is your specific issue?
We have seen the batteries drop away during second stage flight.
There is no indication or reason to have anything on them like parachutes or beacons. They are dropped to save mass after being discharged.
Batteries are dense, so they will just drop along ballistic trajectories, getting some significant distance down range.
But they are far from orbital velocity, so they might not burn up. Is that your issue?
In a polar launch remnants might wind up on Antarctica. Is that what you meant?
Or the head of an endangered whale ;) (Inside joke about the protest filed)
I guess I was just wondering whether RocketLab might not eventually evolve to a small conventional turbopump, and ditch the whole battery idea. It seems to me they've adopted their current technology approach to get their business model going more quickly and conveniently. But once they've got revenue flowing and a full manifest, then what's to prevent them from gradually evolving their vehicle with various improvements - including a conventional small turbopump?
They've said they don't want to do reusable - and that seems congruent with the idea of not evolving beyond electric turbopumps - but company heads say lots of things to throw off their competition, too. If they were to evolve to a small conventional turbopump, then that would remove a key barrier to seeking reusability. Maybe the turbopump would be the last thing to be changed, so as to avoid tipping off their intentions, and meanwhile they'd continue refining everything else in their launch stack, until they were ready to make the big switchover.
Again, RocketLab seem to have a disruptive approach - and disruptors have an intrinsic interest in masking their intentions, in order to ward off pre-emptive action from the more established competitors.
What's the chance of that happening?
In his recent interview Peter Beck claimed customers were building to the electron spec now because it allowed them to build less robustly (because the vibration environment the electric turbopump afforded was so much more benign - I think this was the implied reason)
-
Venture Class Rockets: First Class Flights for CubeSats
NASAKennedy
Published on Dec 3, 2018
For years, tiny CubeSat satellites could only fly into space as hitchhikers, riding along with larger, primary payloads. Now, thanks to Venture Class Launch Services, these small packages of big science are getting their own rides into space on dedicated rockets -- and on their own terms. Rocket Lab USA of Huntington Beach, California, and Virgin Orbit of Long Beach, California, are the two companies poised to propel CubeSats from coach class to first class.
https://youtu.be/0EJqfWMuOAQ?t=001
https://youtu.be/0EJqfWMuOAQ
-
https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/12/18136729/rocket-lab-electron-rocket-nasa-elana-19-mission-new-zealand
A couple of interesting bits besides Elana 19 mission. Next Electron is at launch site ready for Jan launch if all goes well today. Planning on 16 next year.
-
Venture Class Rockets First Class Flights for CubeSats
NASA
Published on Dec 14, 2018
For years, tiny CubeSat satellites could only fly into space as hitchhikers, riding along with larger, primary payloads. Now, thanks to Venture Class Launch Services, these small packages of big science are getting their own rides into space on dedicated rockets -- and on their own terms. Rocket Lab USA of Huntington Beach, California, and Virgin Orbit of Long Beach, California, are the two companies poised to propel CubeSats from coach class to first class. Music Courtesy of Gothic Storm Music.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6kuPPO48iE?t=001
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6kuPPO48iE
-
While we coast, investigation has revealed that a large adult sheep masses about 160 kg. It is 180 cm long and stands 127 cm at the shoulder, with about 50 cm of that height being the legs. The Electron can carry 220 kg to orbit and has a fairing that is 100 cm in diameter and 191 cm long, including the forward taper. Though payload interfaces would need to be designed, it would appear Electron has SSTO capability (Single Sheep to Orbit).
-
While we coast, investigation has revealed that a large adult sheep masses about 160 kg. It is 180 cm long and stands 127 cm at the shoulder, with about 50 cm of that height being the legs. The Electron can carry 220 kg to orbit and has a fairing that is 100 cm in diameter and 191 cm long, including the forward taper. Though payload interfaces would need to be designed, it would appear Electron has SSTO capability (Single Sheep to Orbit).
Luckily for the sheep RL don't launch meat.
-
Now that Electron seems to be a working and reliable launcher (so far) - perhaps it and SpaceX's F9 should give other launch providers a template going forward to developing new launch vehicles. Electron and F9 do after all share some things that would appear to be useful 'good practices' for others to adopt: (and no, not 9 engines specifically) ;)
- several engines on first stage (smaller engines less costly to develop)
- upper stage has vacuum version of first stage engine (saves money)
- same diameter on both stages (saves money by simplifying tooling)
Sure, this approach won't work for all. But it is amazing that only SpaceX and RocketLab so far are doing this.
-
Now that Electron seems to be a working and reliable launcher (so far) - perhaps it and SpaceX's F9 should give other launch providers a template going forward to developing new launch vehicles. Electron and F9 do after all share some things that would appear to be useful 'good practices' for others to adopt: (and no, not 9 engines specifically) ;)
- several engines on first stage (smaller engines less costly to develop)
- upper stage has vacuum version of first stage engine (saves money)
- same diameter on both stages (saves money by simplifying tooling)
Sure, this approach won't work for all. But it is amazing that only SpaceX and RocketLab so far are doing this.
Blue was going to do all those with New Glenn, but dropped the common upper stage engine. They still are doing the other 2 things.
-
https://twitter.com/rocketlab/status/1109216668608192512
We don't just go to orbit, we deploy satellites with exquisite accuracy. Electron's Kick Stage takes our customers' satellites exactly where they need to go. Looking forward to flying another Kick Stage on our @DARPA #R3D2 mission. L-2 days!
rocketlabusa.com/vehicle/kickst…
-
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanocallaghan/2019/03/28/rocket-lab-launches-experimental-satellite-for-darpa-on-its-first-mission-of-2019/#50084c08d0c0
"We’re at a count of 117 stored launch vehicles now in some form of development,” said Beck. “We’ve doubled in size in the last six months, and most of that is really building the business.”
That 117 could be varies parts eg engines, valves, avionics, doubt its stages.
-
Rocketlab has a new users guide as of April 2019. Linking to it here:
https://www.rocketlabusa.com/assets/Uploads/Rocket-Lab-Payload-Users-Guide-7.3.pdf
Good info on the kick stage & the "Photon" spacecraft platform.
-
On the point about the thermal control of the payload, Electron doesn't seem to have aircon going to the fairing. Anyone know if this is the case?
Rocketlab's Electron User guide ( see page 14) says the fairing can have environmental controls, although presence of this feature seems to be payload specific.
The link on Rocketlab's website to the current Version 6.2 of the Electron Payload User's Guide (https://www.rocketlabusa.com/assets/Uploads/Rocket-Lab-Payload-Users-Guide6.2.pdf) is broken, possibly by intention.
Has anyone downloaded any revisions after the December 2016 Version 4.0 attached to the above post?
-
On the point about the thermal control of the payload, Electron doesn't seem to have aircon going to the fairing. Anyone know if this is the case?
Rocketlab's Electron User guide ( see page 14) says the fairing can have environmental controls, although presence of this feature seems to be payload specific.
The link on Rocketlab's website to the current Version 6.2 of the Electron Payload User's Guide (https://www.rocketlabusa.com/assets/Uploads/Rocket-Lab-Payload-Users-Guide6.2.pdf) is broken, possibly by intention.
Has anyone downloaded any revisions after the December 2016 Version 4.0 attached to the above post?
Here's 6.2
- Ed Kyle
-
twitter.com/simplyspace_yt/status/1202628705484337152
I remember @Peter_J_Beck mentioned this as an advantage of electric turbo pumps, they can run the tanks dry if need be.
https://twitter.com/peter_j_beck/status/1202679301562257408
This is correct, stage 1 is burnt to depletion. On a small launch vehicle residuals can easly dwarf the payload lift capacity. 150L of left over propellants is our total payload, so it’s super important to have good propellant management.
https://twitter.com/_david_011/status/1202681382687952896
What are the things you really need to manage to be able to run your propellant tanks dry?
twitter.com/torybruno/status/1202724197589377025
One can always run one’s tanks dry, ending up with more of whatever parameter was in the last burn. Atlas and Delta are far more sophisticated. They can dynamicly measure performance during burn and reprogram the overall trajectory to provide more of a predetermined orbital state
https://twitter.com/peter_j_beck/status/1202826463956717568
We have the same dynamic measurement approach on ascent. ULA absolutely set the gold standard for orbital accuracy and now Electron is delivering this accuracy for small satellites. (Within 400 meters on apogee last flight)
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1202726456855367682
Additionally, simply running to depletion will give a variable and unpredictable final velocity vector, spoiling accuracy. Which is no way to get a bullseye...
-
twitter.com/maxstricht/status/1253748605107798020
@Peter_J_Beck Why not coat electron so the ice doesn't stick, so you would get better preformance?
(And so we get to see a black rocket fly?)
https://twitter.com/peter_j_beck/status/1253767191930925056
The ice is actually helpful as it acts as a thermal insulator and allows us to maintain cooler LOX. Also, coating the tanks is another production process and right now not having to paint the whole Rocket is wonderful.
-
Trevor Mahlmann has been tweeting a load of Electron shots
https://twitter.com/trevormahlmann/status/1256051553439567872
https://twitter.com/trevormahlmann/status/1256051222743744513
https://twitter.com/trevormahlmann/status/1256050971261747203
https://twitter.com/trevormahlmann/status/1256050713119141893
https://twitter.com/trevormahlmann/status/1256050431865823235
https://twitter.com/trevormahlmann/status/1256050014310273030
https://twitter.com/trevormahlmann/status/1256049419029491712
https://twitter.com/trevormahlmann/status/1256048996386308097
https://twitter.com/trevormahlmann/status/1256048834364551171
https://twitter.com/trevormahlmann/status/1256048208368861184
https://twitter.com/trevormahlmann/status/1256056400847032320
-
We have the same dynamic measurement approach on ascent. ULA absolutely set the gold standard for orbital accuracy and now Electron is delivering this accuracy for small satellites. (Within 400 meters on apogee last flight)
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1202726456855367682
Additionally, simply running to depletion will give a variable and unpredictable final velocity vector, spoiling accuracy. Which is no way to get a bullseye...
Actually both statements are true.
In principle a more controlled booster burn means a more precise US burn and hence a narrower spread of altitude/inclination/velocity ranges.
But if you're goals include first stage recovery and its a small stage then burn to completion is an excellent strategy. It gives maximum margin for the US (unless the booster was loaded with below minimum propellant levels, which would be very poor pad operations).
So the US GNC might need to be more precise and the processor work harder to calculate exactly what the stage has to do cope with such a wider dispersion.
In the days when a flight processor could weigh a 100lb and a few 100 KIPS this was a serious trade off which should not be taken lightly. :(
Things have moved on a bit since then. :) The only real question would be if the INS has the necessary accuracy and update rate and the TVC actuators the necessary authority to command the vehicle if the booster performance was borderline viable. I'm not familiar enough with the SoA. My instinct is this is one of those "could be" problems if you choose absolutely rock bottom grade sensors and actuators, but disappears if you buy slightly up the capability scale.
The complaint would be "But we'll have to load the US heavy to cope with worst case performance of the booster."
Umm, don't you do this anyway? Especially if like ULA you put a premium on mission success. Likewise AFAIK propellant biasing (where you load a bit more of the lighter propellant to ensure the heavier one always burns out first, pushing maximum reaction mass out the back) is SOP for all liquid propellant rockets.
This has been a known thing since Longsdon's and Africano's classic paper on the subject.
-
Likewise AFAIK propellant biasing (where you load a bit more of the lighter propellant to ensure the heavier one always burns out first, pushing maximum reaction mass out the back) is SOP for all liquid propellant rockets.
I believe the reason for fuel biasing is so that you don't run the engine oxidiser rich (which would subsequently result in the metal in your engine burning) when the fuel runs out. It just so happens that most propellant combinations have an oxidiser to fuel ratio greater than one. Fun fact! Liquid fluorine and HTP has a mixture ratio less than one (0.88).
-
We have the same dynamic measurement approach on ascent. ULA absolutely set the gold standard for orbital accuracy and now Electron is delivering this accuracy for small satellites. (Within 400 meters on apogee last flight)
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1202726456855367682
Additionally, simply running to depletion will give a variable and unpredictable final velocity vector, spoiling accuracy. Which is no way to get a bullseye...
Actually both statements are true.
In principle a more controlled booster burn means a more precise US burn and hence a narrower spread of altitude/inclination/velocity ranges.
But if you're goals include first stage recovery and its a small stage then burn to completion is an excellent strategy. It gives maximum margin for the US (unless the booster was loaded with below minimum propellant levels, which would be very poor pad operations).
So the US GNC might need to be more precise and the processor work harder to calculate exactly what the stage has to do cope with such a wider dispersion.
In the days when a flight processor could weigh a 100lb and a few 100 KIPS this was a serious trade off which should not be taken lightly. :(
Things have moved on a bit since then. :) The only real question would be if the INS has the necessary accuracy and update rate and the TVC actuators the necessary authority to command the vehicle if the booster performance was borderline viable. I'm not familiar enough with the SoA. My instinct is this is one of those "could be" problems if you choose absolutely rock bottom grade sensors and actuators, but disappears if you buy slightly up the capability scale.
The complaint would be "But we'll have to load the US heavy to cope with worst case performance of the booster."
Umm, don't you do this anyway? Especially if like ULA you put a premium on mission success. Likewise AFAIK propellant biasing (where you load a bit more of the lighter propellant to ensure the heavier one always burns out first, pushing maximum reaction mass out the back) is SOP for all liquid propellant rockets.
This has been a known thing since Longsdon's and Africano's classic paper on the subject.
When Photon is being used, 2nd stage orbit insertion doesn't need to be perfect as Photon can correct for it. Any smallsat that doesn't use Photon will have DV to do its own orbit correction as it will be deployed to 2nd stage disposal orbit.
With ULA Centuar is doing final payload deployment so its more critical.
Electron can run its tanks dry as electric pumps can react instantly when it detects no fuel. I don't think same can be said for turbopumps, hence need to keep little unburnt fuel.
-
I believe the reason for fuel biasing is so that you don't run the engine oxidiser rich (which would subsequently result in the metal in your engine burning) when the fuel runs out. It just so happens that most propellant combinations have an oxidiser to fuel ratio greater than one. Fun fact! Liquid fluorine and HTP has a mixture ratio less than one (0.88).
That's true for Shuttle but IIRC the Longsdon & Africano paper (one of my favorites, but missing one vital piece) the goal is normally to maximize pay. Given all vehicles to date were expendable not destroying the engine after it's served its purpose does not seem a high priority.
So the logic says burn till oxidizer depletion. TBH This looks like another piece of rocket industry folklore.
It always fascinated me that Aerojet often pitched huge O/F ratio changes in their engine designs. It might be because they never expected them to be built but equally it could be they knew that
Maximum chamber temp --> stochiometric O/F ratio.
Chamber temp drops either side of that.
So if the rate of change of O/F ratio is fast enough T(chamb) spikes briefly then starts dropping again.
Indeed could a big enough chamber have so much thermal inertia in it that any actual spike is absorbed by the gas already in the chamber?
Obviously this idea's not viable in an era of manually adjusted test chamber settings, but once those are set by electrically controlled valves....
Like wise there's a lot of caveats to the meaning of "fast enough" especially WRT combustion instability.
The flip side to this is the "Most reliable component is the one that is not there" argument.
-
Electron can run its tanks dry as electric pumps can react instantly when it detects no fuel. I don't think same can be said for turbopumps, hence need to keep little unburnt fuel.
They are both mechanical systems and so are subject to inertia.
There are 2 issues.
If the pump is still powered when it starts trying to pump tank fumes the sudden reduction of load will let it accelerate, probably to the point at which parts start to fly off. An electric pump replaces a gas turbine with a motor but they are still a spinning lump of metal. OTOH the electric motor can act as a generator to dummy load, so (in principle) could brake much faster.
The other issue is if the chamber burns oxidizer rich that leaves free O2 in the chamber which is probably hot enough to start the chamber burning.
The easy course of action is to ensure the MR never goes Ox rich (or more specifically to the point it exactly matches the fuel, which is the maximum temperature burn).
-
Electron can run its tanks dry as electric pumps can react instantly when it detects no fuel. I don't think same can be said for turbopumps, hence need to keep little unburnt fuel.
They are both mechanical systems and so are subject to inertia.
There are 2 issues.
If the pump is still powered when it starts trying to pump tank fumes the sudden reduction of load will let it accelerate, probably to the point at which parts start to fly off. An electric pump replaces a gas turbine with a motor but they are still a spinning lump of metal. OTOH the electric motor can act as a generator to dummy load, so (in principle) could brake much faster.
The other issue is if the chamber burns oxidizer rich that leaves free O2 in the chamber which is probably hot enough to start the chamber burning.
The easy course of action is to ensure the MR never goes Ox rich (or more specifically to the point it exactly matches the fuel, which is the maximum temperature burn).
The no fuel detection would be up stream enough to give pump enough time to stop.
-
driv
If the pump is still powered when it starts trying to pump tank fumes the sudden reduction of load will let it accelerate
Not with an electronically controlled motor. The motor speed is limited by the frequency of the drive current. Depending on the exact type of motor the drive frequency is the same as the operating speed, or a few percent higher. So speed cannot surge much. The only way for the motor to speed up significantly is for the motor controller to increase the frequency, and that won't happen as a result of physics, since it's controlled by software and control rules.
What happens is as the mechanical load is removed the back emf from the motor drops and the current rises, potentially high enough to melt the motor or controller, but the controller is already switching at kilohertz or higher and can react very quickly to cut the voltage and limit current to prevent damage.
-
What happens is as the mechanical load is removed the back emf from the motor drops and the current rises, potentially high enough to melt the motor or controller, but the controller is already switching at kilohertz or higher and can react very quickly to cut the voltage and limit current to prevent damage.
There's lots of ifs, buts and maybe's in there.
Eletron is a small laucher, so pipe runs are short. Those pumps are in the 10s of 1000s of RPM range. I'm aware of the theory of what should happen but for something like this I'd want a rig test to prove it.
-
https://twitter.com/rocketlab/status/1260710472820523009
Another set of 3D printed Rutherford engines rolling off the line in Long Beach. We're fast approaching our 200th engine!
-
Rocket Lab Increases Electron Payload Capacity, Enabling Interplanetary Missions and Reusability
Rocket Lab has released additional performance from its Rutherford engines, boosting the payload capacity on the Electron launch vehicle and Photon satellite bus
Long Beach, California. August 4, 2020 – Rocket Lab, a satellite manufacturer and the global leader in dedicated small satellite launch, has today announced a major performance increase to the Electron launch vehicle, boosting the company’s payload lift capacity up to 300 kg (660 lbs).
The increased payload mass capacity has primarily been made possible through advances in the battery technology that powers Rutherford’s electric pumps. Since Rocket Lab’s maiden launch in 2017, the Electron launch vehicle has boasted a payload lift capacity of 150 kg to 500 km to Sun- synchronous orbits (SSO), with a maximum lift capacity of 225 kg total to lower orbits. Thanks to the performance increase, Electron is now capable of lifting 200 kg to 500 km SSO and up to 300 kg to lower orbits.
The performance improvements make it possible to launch more payload to low Earth orbit (LEO), lunar, and interplanetary destinations on expendable Electron missions, while offsetting the additional mass of recovery systems added to Electron for missions slated for recovery and re-flight.
The increased performance also means that customers selecting Rocket Lab’s Photon spacecraft as a satellite bus now have up to 180 kg (396 lbs) available as pure payload instrument mass, enabling more complex missions in LEO and beyond. With robust power systems, high-performance propulsion, secure data handling, and precise pointing and accuracy, Rocket Lab’s family of LEO and interplanetary Photon buses offer customized spacecraft solutions to accommodate a wide range of small satellite missions.
“When we created Electron, we set out to develop a launch vehicle that small satellite operators would turn to when they needed a dedicated ride to a unique orbit on their schedule. We’re proud to be delivering that capability and continuing to evolve our launch and satellite services to meet the market’s ever-changing needs,” said Peter Beck, Rocket Lab’s founder and CEO. “Electron remains right-sized for the small sat market, and releasing additional performance is about providing our customers with even more flexibility on the same proven vehicle they have come to rely on.”
Rocket Lab has now launched 130 Rutherford engines to space and carried out more than 1,000 engine test fires on the ground, equipping engineers with the wealth of data and experience needed to deliver extra performance from the engines and their batteries.
About the Rutherford Engine
Weighing in at just 35 kilograms, Rocket Lab’s Rutherford engines are the world’s first 3D printed and electric pump-fed engines to be launched to space. Rocket Lab began development on Rutherford in 2013 and the first engine was test fired the same year, marking the beginning of a new generation in rocket propulsion.
Rutherford engines are used as first and second stage engines on the Electron launch vehicle. There are nine Rutherford engines on Electron’s first stage and a single vacuum optimized version on the second stage. The sea level versions on Electron’s first stage now produce 5,600 lbf of thrust (up from 5,500 lbf, with a specific impulse of 311 s (3.05 km/s). The vacuum optimized version operating on Electron’s second stage now produces a max thrust of 5,800 lbf of thrust and has a specific impulse of 343 s (3.36 km/s).
Instead of being powered by traditional gas turbine pumps, Rutherford uses an entirely new propulsion cycle of brushless DC electric motors and high-performance lithium polymer batteries to drive its propellant pumps. This cuts down on much of the complex turbomachinery typically required for gas generator cycle engines, meaning that the Rutherford is simpler to build than a traditional engine but can achieve 90% efficiency.
The Rutherford engine’s production scalability is facilitated by additively manufactured, or 3D printed, primary components. With a 3D printed combustion chamber, injectors, pumps, and main propellant valves, Rutherford has the most 3D printed components of any rocket engine in the world. These primary components can be printed in 24 hours, drastically reducing production timelines.
https://www.rocketlabusa.com/news/updates/rocket-lab-increases-electron-payload-capacity-enabling-interplanetary-missions-and-reusability/
-
The increased performance also means that customers selecting Rocket Lab’s Photon spacecraft as a satellite bus now have up to 180 kg (396 lbs) available as pure payload instrument mass, enabling more complex missions in LEO and beyond.
For pure fun: this is just enough mass to sit a human in an ACES-like suit and a MOOSE on top of Photon, to allow you to ride to orbit, fly around a bit on the Photon, then de-orbit, re-enter, and parachute down with MOOSE. A potentially sub $10 million joyride like no other.
-
Sounds a lot like the Armadillo Aerospace suborbital plans.
-
The upgrade should've shaved 20-30% off their $kg to orbit price assuming build costs haven't increased significantly. Reuse should reduce this considerably more, helping to close gap between Electron and new up and coming 1000kg LVs.
NB this performance increase is similar to F9 1.0 to 1.1 upgrade.
-
As we all predicted, battery progress specifically favors Rocketlab for performance improvements without major redesign (assuming mostly COTS power electronics are available for that class of power consumption at reasonable mass).
I wonder what the specific energy density/specific power increase in the battery was? Possibly a different pack cell packaging/cooling arrangement may have also achieved some gains? There's been some interesting work in currently available batteries using graphene to improve performance using the same chemistry (see the advances for quadcopter batteries for a taste of what's COTS right now).
-
Rocket Lab SmallSat Update and Q&A
Scheduled for Aug 5, 2020
Tune in to a live webcast with Rocket Lab’s CEO and founder Peter Beck to hear an update on Rocket Lab’s launch activity, reusability, and satellite programs. Plus, live Q&A with viewers.
https://youtu.be/zhqzSVEGVxw
-
The first stage thrust figures on Rocketlab don't make sense. First stage sea level thrust is given as 162 kN (34.5 klbf), but 34.5 klbf is actually 153.5 kN, so the 162 kN value is a 5% error. Similarly, first stage vacuum thrust is given as 192 kN (41.5 klbf), but 41.5 klbf is actually 184.6 kN, so the 192 kN value is a 4% error.
https://web.archive.org/web/20180203011204/http://rocketlabusa.com/electron/
In the press release, old first stage sea level engine thrust is given as 24.5 kN (5.5 klbf), however the website gives a value of 17.1 kN (3.8 klbf) using the imperial value or 18 kN (4.0 klbf) is using the metric value. However, the vacuum values are 20.5 kN (4.6 klbf) using the imperial value or 21.3 kN (4.8 klbf) using the metric value.
This old press release gives a sea level thrust of 24 kN (5.5 klbf) and Isp of 311 s, which matches the new press release. However, the vacuum optimised version also has a thrust of 24 kN (5.5 klbf), but an Isp of 343 s.
https://www.rocketlabusa.com/news/updates/rocket-lab-reaches-500-rutherford-engine-test-fires/
Unfortunately, I have no way of reconciling all the different values, so I'll present all the values below
Web Web PR PR PR
Year 2018 2018 2018 2018 2020
Derived from Met. Imp. Met. Imp. Imp.
Thrust 1st SL (kN) 18.0 17.1 24.0 24.5 24.9
Thrust 1st Vac (kN) 21.3 20.5 - - -
Thrust 2nd Vac (kN) 22.0 22.2 24.0 24.5 25.8
Isp 1st SL (s) 256 252 - - -
Isp 1st Vac (s) 303 303 311 311 311
Isp 2nd Vac (s) 333 333 343 343 343
-
If they ever decided to go all 'Falcon Heavy' on us and do a '3-Stick, triple-barrel' Electron with a stretched upper stage; I wonder what performance they could squeeze out of the 'bootstrapped' concept? Would it be worth the money and effort to do it? Or just step up to a wider, single-stick design in a few years with approximately 18x Rutherford engines on the Corestage and say 4x on the second stage? ;)
-
As we all predicted, battery progress specifically favors Rocketlab for performance improvements without major redesign (assuming mostly COTS power electronics are available for that class of power consumption at reasonable mass).
I wonder what the specific energy density/specific power increase in the battery was? Possibly a different pack cell packaging/cooling arrangement may have also achieved some gains? There's been some interesting work in currently available batteries using graphene to improve performance using the same chemistry (see the advances for quadcopter batteries for a taste of what's COTS right now).
Besides battery and engine performance increase, there has likely to be bit mass savings LV as design has be refined.
-
As we all predicted, battery progress specifically favors Rocketlab for performance improvements without major redesign (assuming mostly COTS power electronics are available for that class of power consumption at reasonable mass).
I wonder what the specific energy density/specific power increase in the battery was? Possibly a different pack cell packaging/cooling arrangement may have also achieved some gains? There's been some interesting work in currently available batteries using graphene to improve performance using the same chemistry (see the advances for quadcopter batteries for a taste of what's COTS right now).
Graphene in batteries isn't very new and graphene (in bulk form) has much worse specific conductivity than some alternatives...
What might be kind of interesting is the new lithium metal anode batteries. They have about twice the specific energy of typical lithium ion batteries and comparable specific power.
I think it'd only really be relevant for the long-burning upper stage, though. The C-rate isn't high enough to make a difference for the first stage (yet).
-
A big factor in most battery development is lifespan. It would be interesting to see how much capacity improvement they could get if that wasn't a factor because the batteries would only be used a few times. Probably not that big a market for that sort of battery though.
Maybe even non rechargable batteries that aren't used until umbilical disconnect at liftoff?
-
Link to the new Payload Users Guide v6.5 released August 2020: https://www.rocketlabusa.com/assets/Uploads/Rocket-Lab-Launch-Payload-Users-Guide-6.5.pdf (https://www.rocketlabusa.com/assets/Uploads/Rocket-Lab-Launch-Payload-Users-Guide-6.5.pdf)
Rocket Lab’s flagship engine, the 5,600 lbf (24 kN) Rutherford
With an expanded nozzle, Electron’s second stage engine produces a thrust of 5,800 lbf and has a specific impulse of 343 sec.
-
Link to the new Payload Users Guide v6.5 released August 2020: https://www.rocketlabusa.com/assets/Uploads/Rocket-Lab-Launch-Payload-Users-Guide-6.5.pdf (https://www.rocketlabusa.com/assets/Uploads/Rocket-Lab-Launch-Payload-Users-Guide-6.5.pdf)
Rocket Lab’s flagship engine, the 5,600 lbf (24 kN) Rutherford
With an expanded nozzle, Electron’s second stage engine produces a thrust of 5,800 lbf and has a specific impulse of 343 sec.
Interesting that they're now offering expanded fairings.
-
Spot the odd one out. S1 recovery booster.
https://twitter.com/Peter_J_Beck/status/1291182143905792001
-
If they ever decided to go all 'Falcon Heavy' on us and do a '3-Stick, triple-barrel' Electron with a stretched upper stage; I wonder what performance they could squeeze out of the 'bootstrapped' concept? Would it be worth the money and effort to do it? Or just step up to a wider, single-stick design in a few years with approximately 18x Rutherford engines on the Corestage and say 4x on the second stage? ;)
Going the Falcon Heavy route with multiple cores doesn't required new tooling and bigger autoclaves.
The tri-core concept is not optimal, IMO. Having from 3 to 6 strapped-on Electron boosters as the first stage along with a reinforced center Electron core ignited in the air as second stage plus a stretched or regular Electron upper stage. Should get you performance similar to the Delta II.
Of course any clustering of Electron cores will required a new and bigger launch pad along with a more complex vehicle assembly building.
Also need a bigger payload fairing.
The above monstrosity in it's most potent form will have 54 Rutherfords (1404 kN) in the first stage , 9 Rutherfords (234 kN) in the second stage and 1 Rutherford Vac (25 kN) in the upper stage.
-
A big factor in most battery development is lifespan. It would be interesting to see how much capacity improvement they could get if that wasn't a factor because the batteries would only be used a few times. Probably not that big a market for that sort of battery though.
Maybe even non rechargable batteries that aren't used until umbilical disconnect at liftoff?
Non-reusable would be just fine, here. (Certainly for the upper stage.) BUT... Non-rechargable chemistries usually have worse specific power than the typical rechargable chemistries.
-
If they ever decided to go all 'Falcon Heavy' on us and do a '3-Stick, triple-barrel' Electron with a stretched upper stage; I wonder what performance they could squeeze out of the 'bootstrapped' concept? Would it be worth the money and effort to do it? Or just step up to a wider, single-stick design in a few years with approximately 18x Rutherford engines on the Corestage and say 4x on the second stage? ;)
Going the Falcon Heavy route with multiple cores doesn't required new tooling and bigger autoclaves.
The tri-core concept is not optimal, IMO. Having from 3 to 6 strapped-on Electron boosters as the first stage along with a reinforced center Electron core ignited in the air as second stage plus a stretched or regular Electron upper stage. Should get you performance similar to the Delta II.
Of course any clustering of Electron cores will required a new and bigger launch pad along with a more complex vehicle assembly building.
Also need a bigger payload fairing.
The above monstrosity in it's most potent form will have 54 Rutherfords (1404 kN) in the first stage , 9 Rutherfords (234 kN) in the second stage and 1 Rutherford Vac (25 kN) in the upper stage.
If I read between the lines correctly, Peter indicated they can't compete withF9 if they build a bigger rocket, let alone Starship. They'll move further into all kinds of small-space-mission related services before they make a bigger rocket, IMO. Integrated solutions for customers with limited budget and no existing experience to combine separate providers with a lower total cost (which in reality usually costs more than expected anyway)
-
If they ever decided to go all 'Falcon Heavy' on us and do a '3-Stick, triple-barrel' Electron with a stretched upper stage; I wonder what performance they could squeeze out of the 'bootstrapped' concept? Would it be worth the money and effort to do it? Or just step up to a wider, single-stick design in a few years with approximately 18x Rutherford engines on the Corestage and say 4x on the second stage? ;)
Going the Falcon Heavy route with multiple cores doesn't required new tooling and bigger autoclaves.
The tri-core concept is not optimal, IMO. Having from 3 to 6 strapped-on Electron boosters as the first stage along with a reinforced center Electron core ignited in the air as second stage plus a stretched or regular Electron upper stage. Should get you performance similar to the Delta II.
Of course any clustering of Electron cores will required a new and bigger launch pad along with a more complex vehicle assembly building.
Also need a bigger payload fairing.
The above monstrosity in it's most potent form will have 54 Rutherfords (1404 kN) in the first stage , 9 Rutherfords (234 kN) in the second stage and 1 Rutherford Vac (25 kN) in the upper stage.
If I read between the lines correctly, Peter indicated they can't compete withF9 if they build a bigger rocket, let alone Starship. They'll move further into all kinds of small-space-mission related services before they make a bigger rocket, IMO. Integrated solutions for customers with limited budget and no existing experience to combine separate providers with a lower total cost (which in reality usually costs more than expected anyway)
No reading between the lines required. Rocketlab operates in a very small niche - which is getting smaller all the time. There is nowhere to scale up towards, as larger rockets just push them into SpaceX territory where they cannot be even remotely competitive.
-
Unofficial animation of upgraded Electron
https://youtu.be/0ozC5jhKhFU
Edit to add:
https://twitter.com/caspar_stanley/status/1291376446921936903
What do you think @Peter_J_Beck? Is this what the Electron will look like in the near future? 🚀
I will just say, I love the look of it.
-
Spot the odd one out. S1 recovery booster.
https://twitter.com/Peter_J_Beck/status/1291182143905792001
'Recovery Booster' looks like it has a reinforced band a little ways down the interstage. Probably to take shock load from parachute deployment and reefing.
-
https://twitter.com/rocketlab/status/1298048812951298048
A sneak peek at our Maxwell dispensers lined up for a new mission in the coming weeks. These Maxwells will be integrated onto Electron's Kick Stage, and each CubeSat inside will be deployed to a precise and individual orbit. That's the beauty of rideshare on Electron.
-
https://twitter.com/peter_j_beck/status/1304146946848780288
I love our payload adaptors. This one will have a bunch of sats all around including a micro sat on the top. As always, beautiful workmanship by the team. (I have a real thing for precise equal spacing in cable ties). 😁
-
https://twitter.com/peter_j_beck/status/1316838666602381312
Kick Stages are rolling off the production line. Every one is different to give full flexibility to each mission.
-
Excellent news on the success of RL15.
I think their is still a possibility of doing RL17 and attempting a recovery before 2021, which would be exciting.
-
https://twitter.com/rocketlab/status/1322246909533118464
We just made in-space transportation even easier. After deploying 10 sats to perfect orbits for our customers on the #InFocus mission, the Kick Stage had one more trick up its sleeve. For the first time, we demonstrated a plane change maneuver.
twitter.com/rocketlab/status/1322247642873761797
The ability to change orbital inclinations means more flexibility for our customers, enabling them to position each and every satellite juuuuuust right. It also opens up an even wider range of missions possible from LC-1 and LC-2.
https://twitter.com/rocketlab/status/1322248030851014656
It’s just the latest capability demo from the Kick Stage. Across 15 missions, the Kick Stage has demonstrated orbit raising & lowering, constellation deployment, engine re-lights, inclination changes, hosted payload support & de-orbit capability.
-
I'd argue that RL Curie kickstage has being doing this for awhile. Either way its good news for cubesat and smallsat operators.
https://spacenews.com/d-orbit-demonstrates-ion/
“Many people talk about this upcoming market of in-orbit transportation or last-mile delivery, filling the gap between the drop off condition provided by the launch vehicle and the target orbit relevant for the operational or business purposes of the end users,” Renato Panesi, D-Orbit chief commercial officer, told SpaceNews. “We have been able to fill that gap. We are the first in the world to do that.”
-
The best part? The Kick Stage lets you design your mission your way. Choose Electron and get launch plus space tug in one, or fly a Kick Stage on another launch vehicle and still enjoy tailored in-space transportation to your perfect orbit. https://t.co/BOWXgjILco
-
The best part? The Kick Stage lets you design your mission your way. Choose Electron and get launch plus space tug in one, or fly a Kick Stage on another launch vehicle and still enjoy tailored in-space transportation to your perfect orbit. https://t.co/BOWXgjILco
Feeling the competition from Momentus?
-
The best part? The Kick Stage lets you design your mission your way. Choose Electron and get launch plus space tug in one, or fly a Kick Stage on another launch vehicle and still enjoy tailored in-space transportation to your perfect orbit. https://t.co/BOWXgjILco
Feeling the competition from Momentus?
While Curie can fly on other LVs, how its sold maybe issue. Customers are ride services companies like Spaceflight that will purchase space on F9 and on sell it to few individual satellite customers. Larger satellite customers like Planet could buy Curie outright then fly on F9. RL could become flight services company and offer rides on F9 using Curie but at cost of Electron launches.
-
Good overview of Electron launch preparation, view from 1:25:00 mark. They do short engine fire at T -6:00:00, this quite few hours before fuelling so must add just enough for test fire. NB Rutherford uses spark igniters.
https://youtu.be/S6PxSE29hQU
-
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/08/peter-beck-explains-why-electron-may-only-ever-launch-10-15-times-a-year/
Peter Beck explains why Electron may only ever launch 10-15 times a year
"Our cadence today is 100 percent driven by market demand."
by Eric Berger - Aug 8, 2022 5:32pm GMT
For a rocket named after a negatively charged particle, the Electron launch vehicle has generated a lot of positive news lately.
Rocket Lab's small booster has already tied its record for annual launches with six this year, and it recently stepped up its cadence to complete three Electron missions in just five weeks.
Later in the article:
"The reality is that we built everything to be able to launch once a week," Beck said.
Once again, as SpaceX found with F1, Rocket Lab are finding that the (high) market demand for smallsat launch just isn’t there.
-
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/08/peter-beck-explains-why-electron-may-only-ever-launch-10-15-times-a-year/
Peter Beck explains why Electron may only ever launch 10-15 times a year
"Our cadence today is 100 percent driven by market demand."
by Eric Berger - Aug 8, 2022 5:32pm GMT
For a rocket named after a negatively charged particle, the Electron launch vehicle has generated a lot of positive news lately.
Rocket Lab's small booster has already tied its record for annual launches with six this year, and it recently stepped up its cadence to complete three Electron missions in just five weeks.
Later in the article:
"The reality is that we built everything to be able to launch once a week," Beck said.
Once again, as SpaceX found with F1, Rocket Lab are finding that the (high) market demand for smallsat launch just isn’t there.
More like they're learning what SpaceX learnt with Falcon 9: without internal payloads, 10-15 commercial flights per year is a high mark. If you also skip CRS & CC, that would be more commercial launches than Falcanon 9 usually achieves per year.
Which is why Rocketlab are getting into spacecraft manufacture: if the launch market demand you expect to materialise to meet your supply doesn't, make it yourself.
-
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/08/peter-beck-explains-why-electron-may-only-ever-launch-10-15-times-a-year/
Peter Beck explains why Electron may only ever launch 10-15 times a year
"Our cadence today is 100 percent driven by market demand."
by Eric Berger - Aug 8, 2022 5:32pm GMT
For a rocket named after a negatively charged particle, the Electron launch vehicle has generated a lot of positive news lately.
Rocket Lab's small booster has already tied its record for annual launches with six this year, and it recently stepped up its cadence to complete three Electron missions in just five weeks.
Later in the article:
"The reality is that we built everything to be able to launch once a week," Beck said.
Once again, as SpaceX found with F1, Rocket Lab are finding that the (high) market demand for smallsat launch just isn’t there.
More like they're learning what SpaceX learnt with Falcon 9: without internal payloads, 10-15 commercial flights per year is a high mark. If you also skip CRS & CC, that would be more commercial launches than Falcanon 9 usually achieves per year.
Which is why Rocketlab are getting into spacecraft manufacture: if the launch market demand you expect to materialise to meet your supply doesn't, make it yourself.
Not the correct take on this issue. See the 80+ launches just awarded by Kuiper to ULA and others, as just one example. If Electron was the right size, Rocketlab could have had a big share of that pie.
-
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/08/peter-beck-explains-why-electron-may-only-ever-launch-10-15-times-a-year/
Peter Beck explains why Electron may only ever launch 10-15 times a year
"Our cadence today is 100 percent driven by market demand."
by Eric Berger - Aug 8, 2022 5:32pm GMT
For a rocket named after a negatively charged particle, the Electron launch vehicle has generated a lot of positive news lately.
Rocket Lab's small booster has already tied its record for annual launches with six this year, and it recently stepped up its cadence to complete three Electron missions in just five weeks.
Later in the article:
"The reality is that we built everything to be able to launch once a week," Beck said.
Once again, as SpaceX found with F1, Rocket Lab are finding that the (high) market demand for smallsat launch just isn’t there.
More like they're learning what SpaceX learnt with Falcon 9: without internal payloads, 10-15 commercial flights per year is a high mark. If you also skip CRS & CC, that would be more commercial launches than Falcanon 9 usually achieves per year.
Which is why Rocketlab are getting into spacecraft manufacture: if the launch market demand you expect to materialise to meet your supply doesn't, make it yourself.
Not the correct take on this issue. See the 80+ launches just awarded by Kuiper to ULA and others, as just one example. If Electron was the right size, Rocketlab could have had a big share of that pie.
83 launches divided by five years is 16.6 launches per year. Considering those launches are distributed across three different providers (Vulcan, Ariane 6, New Glenn), "10-15 commercial flights per year" seems exactly right. Even if they were all for one provider, that would be close enough to call the 10-15 estimate reasonably correct.
-
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/08/peter-beck-explains-why-electron-may-only-ever-launch-10-15-times-a-year/
Peter Beck explains why Electron may only ever launch 10-15 times a year
"Our cadence today is 100 percent driven by market demand."
by Eric Berger - Aug 8, 2022 5:32pm GMT
For a rocket named after a negatively charged particle, the Electron launch vehicle has generated a lot of positive news lately.
Rocket Lab's small booster has already tied its record for annual launches with six this year, and it recently stepped up its cadence to complete three Electron missions in just five weeks.
Later in the article:
"The reality is that we built everything to be able to launch once a week," Beck said.
Once again, as SpaceX found with F1, Rocket Lab are finding that the (high) market demand for smallsat launch just isn’t there.
More like they're learning what SpaceX learnt with Falcon 9: without internal payloads, 10-15 commercial flights per year is a high mark. If you also skip CRS & CC, that would be more commercial launches than Falcanon 9 usually achieves per year.
Which is why Rocketlab are getting into spacecraft manufacture: if the launch market demand you expect to materialise to meet your supply doesn't, make it yourself.
Not the correct take on this issue. See the 80+ launches just awarded by Kuiper to ULA and others, as just one example. If Electron was the right size, Rocketlab could have had a big share of that pie.
83 launches divided by five years is 16.6 launches per year. Considering those launches are distributed across three different providers (Vulcan, Ariane 6, New Glenn), "10-15 commercial flights per year" seems exactly right. Even if they were all for one provider, that would be close enough to call the 10-15 estimate reasonably correct.
A quick count over on the SpaceX manifest thread gives me around 35 non-Starlink launches for SpaceX in 2022. And that’s WITHOUT any of the 83 Kuiper launches.
So why is SpaceX able to hit 35 external launches a year but any other rocket is “limited to 10-15”?
Clearly it’s not about the market, but about having the right rocket at the right price.
-
A quick count over on the SpaceX manifest thread gives me around 35 non-Starlink launches for SpaceX in 2022. And that’s WITHOUT any of the 83 Kuiper launches.
So why is SpaceX able to hit 35 external launches a year but any other rocket is “limited to 10-15”?
Clearly it’s not about the market, but about having the right rocket at the right price.
35 external-payload launches in a year would be very unusual, given that SpaceX launched six such missions in 2021 (not counting the two Transporter missions, three Crew Dragon missions, two Cargo Dragon missions, and two Starlink missions which had rideshares, all of which fall into "SpaceX making their own missions"). I suspect this is largely due to the sudden unavailability of Soyuz, and doesn't represent a general pattern of Falcon 9's ability to capture market share in a world where literally any other rocket is available.
In other words, it's having the right rocket at the right price at the right time, specifically a time when you have total market monopoly. It's understandable that no one else is counting on that happening for them.
-
A quick count over on the SpaceX manifest thread gives me around 35 non-Starlink launches for SpaceX in 2022. And that’s WITHOUT any of the 83 Kuiper launches.
So why is SpaceX able to hit 35 external launches a year but any other rocket is “limited to 10-15”?
Clearly it’s not about the market, but about having the right rocket at the right price.
35 external-payload launches in a year would be very unusual, given that SpaceX launched six such missions in 2021 (not counting the two Transporter missions, three Crew Dragon missions, two Cargo Dragon missions, and two Starlink missions which had rideshares, all of which fall into "SpaceX making their own missions"). I suspect this is largely due to the sudden unavailability of Soyuz, and doesn't represent a general pattern of Falcon 9's ability to capture market share in a world where literally any other rocket is available.
In other words, it's having the right rocket at the right price at the right time, specifically a time when you have total market monopoly. It's understandable that no one else is counting on that happening for them.
Tim Ellis seems to be very bullish on the addressable market.
-
A quick count over on the SpaceX manifest thread gives me around 35 non-Starlink launches for SpaceX in 2022. And that’s WITHOUT any of the 83 Kuiper launches.
So why is SpaceX able to hit 35 external launches a year but any other rocket is “limited to 10-15”?
Clearly it’s not about the market, but about having the right rocket at the right price.
35 external-payload launches in a year would be very unusual, given that SpaceX launched six such missions in 2021 (not counting the two Transporter missions, three Crew Dragon missions, two Cargo Dragon missions, and two Starlink missions which had rideshares, all of which fall into "SpaceX making their own missions"). I suspect this is largely due to the sudden unavailability of Soyuz, and doesn't represent a general pattern of Falcon 9's ability to capture market share in a world where literally any other rocket is available.
In other words, it's having the right rocket at the right price at the right time, specifically a time when you have total market monopoly. It's understandable that no one else is counting on that happening for them.
Tim Ellis seems to be very bullish on the addressable market.
"Very bullish" doesn't necessarily mean "more than 10-15 flights per year for a single provider." Especially considering that by the time Terran-R is coming online, there will be Falcon 9/Heavy, Starship, Vulcan, Ariane 6, H3, New Glenn, and possibly Neutron, Antares 330, and Firefly Beta. If the business case for any of those requires >30 commercially-procured launches per year for a single provider, that provider is going to fail.
-
A quick count over on the SpaceX manifest thread gives me around 35 non-Starlink launches for SpaceX in 2022. And that’s WITHOUT any of the 83 Kuiper launches.
So why is SpaceX able to hit 35 external launches a year but any other rocket is “limited to 10-15”?
Clearly it’s not about the market, but about having the right rocket at the right price.
35 external-payload launches in a year would be very unusual, given that SpaceX launched six such missions in 2021 (not counting the two Transporter missions, three Crew Dragon missions, two Cargo Dragon missions, and two Starlink missions which had rideshares, all of which fall into "SpaceX making their own missions"). I suspect this is largely due to the sudden unavailability of Soyuz, and doesn't represent a general pattern of Falcon 9's ability to capture market share in a world where literally any other rocket is available.
In other words, it's having the right rocket at the right price at the right time, specifically a time when you have total market monopoly. It's understandable that no one else is counting on that happening for them.
Tim Ellis seems to be very bullish on the addressable market.
"Very bullish" doesn't necessarily mean "more than 10-15 flights per year for a single provider." Especially considering that by the time Terran-R is coming online, there will be Falcon 9/Heavy, Starship, Vulcan, Ariane 6, H3, New Glenn, and possibly Neutron, Antares 330, and Firefly Beta. If the business case for any of those requires >30 commercially-procured launches per year for a single provider, that provider is going to fail.
Almost certainly he was projecting a MUCH higher flight rate than 15 a year. Else the development of Terran R is simply not warranted.
-
... Tim Ellis Terran-R flightrate ...
Almost certainly he was projecting a MUCH higher flight rate than 15 a year. Else the development of Terran R is simply not warranted.
Hypothetically - Oneweb V2 competitor to Starlink V2 ?
As Kuiper2 will most likely go to Blue (or maybe that could get spread too?).
-
A quick count over on the SpaceX manifest thread gives me around 35 non-Starlink launches for SpaceX in 2022. And that’s WITHOUT any of the 83 Kuiper launches.
So why is SpaceX able to hit 35 external launches a year but any other rocket is “limited to 10-15”?
Clearly it’s not about the market, but about having the right rocket at the right price.
35 external-payload launches in a year would be very unusual, given that SpaceX launched six such missions in 2021 (not counting the two Transporter missions, three Crew Dragon missions, two Cargo Dragon missions, and two Starlink missions which had rideshares, all of which fall into "SpaceX making their own missions"). I suspect this is largely due to the sudden unavailability of Soyuz, and doesn't represent a general pattern of Falcon 9's ability to capture market share in a world where literally any other rocket is available.
In other words, it's having the right rocket at the right price at the right time, specifically a time when you have total market monopoly. It's understandable that no one else is counting on that happening for them.
Tim Ellis seems to be very bullish on the addressable market.
Relativity has $1.2B orders andcmore in pipeline so he good grounds to be bullish.
-
A quick count over on the SpaceX manifest thread gives me around 35 non-Starlink launches for SpaceX in 2022. And that’s WITHOUT any of the 83 Kuiper launches.
So why is SpaceX able to hit 35 external launches a year but any other rocket is “limited to 10-15”?
Clearly it’s not about the market, but about having the right rocket at the right price.
35 external-payload launches in a year would be very unusual, given that SpaceX launched six such missions in 2021 (not counting the two Transporter missions, three Crew Dragon missions, two Cargo Dragon missions, and two Starlink missions which had rideshares, all of which fall into "SpaceX making their own missions"). I suspect this is largely due to the sudden unavailability of Soyuz, and doesn't represent a general pattern of Falcon 9's ability to capture market share in a world where literally any other rocket is available.
In other words, it's having the right rocket at the right price at the right time, specifically a time when you have total market monopoly. It's understandable that no one else is counting on that happening for them.
Tim Ellis seems to be very bullish on the addressable market.
Relativity has $1.2B orders andcmore in pipeline so he good grounds to be bullish.
At $60 million per launch, that's 20 launches. And they're probably spread over more than one year. Which is still good for Relativity, don't get me wrong, but it's perfectly consistent with expecting 10-15 commercially-competed launches annually.
-
Interesting tidbit I found in the Q2 2022 10-Q filling:
We built approximately eight launch vehicles in 2020 and approximately eight launch vehicles in 2021. We anticipate we will build approximately twelve to fifteen launch vehicles in 2022.
This more or less confirms that they're building Electrons faster than they can find customers ready and willing to fly on them, although it doesn't entirely match the "spare Electrons stacking up like cordwood in the factory" image that some of their talk of build cadence has implied.
-
Under the "improving batteries improve Electron" thesis, where installing improved batteries functionally improves payload with a small amount of effort and minimal rocket redesign...
For the original 220kg payload Electron, stage 1 supposedly is a 1MW powerpack around 200kg, but I don't have a handy energy density number for the current pack. Somebody's rough guess estimates were
F1 engine 6770kN thrust and 41MW turbo-pump = ~6kW/kN pump power per unit thrust.
For the 1st stage of the Electron that translates to 6kW/kN x 183kN = 1098kW
With ~160 sec burn time from full duration engine test that requires 1098kW x 160/3600hr = 49kWh.
Lithium Polymer batteries have energy densities up to 265Wh/kg = 185kg battery.
which mostly squares up with the 200kg stage 1 battery pack comments.
but someone else pointed out each rutherford is 2x50hp motors, so power is 671kW, thus 29.8 kWh needed?
Stage two burns for 5 minutes with one engine (183kN/9 so 122kW), so 10.16kWhr. Original 265Wh/kg guess leads to a second stage battery pack mass of 38.3kg. Some comments have said overall battery pack mass is 250kg, so with S1 at 200kg you can guess S2 is 50kg as a rough approximation, which roughly fits.
So, Amprius is announcing 500 Wh/kg, 1300 Wh/L per cell type lithium-ion batteries
https://amprius.com/the-all-new-amprius-500-wh-kg-battery-platform-is-here/ (https://amprius.com/the-all-new-amprius-500-wh-kg-battery-platform-is-here/)
So while that is per cell, which gets worse as you build up a whole battery pack, but for the sake of numbers that's roughly double the power density. But for a first stage, you get roughly a 10kg mass drop to 1kg payload gain. So roughly 10kg of payload gained from stage 1 improvement. But second stage is more 1:1 ratio.
So rough guess, if original 220kg payload Electron were getting these new batteries results in at least (100kg/10 and 25kg=35kg) payload boost WITH NO OTHER IMPROVEMENTS. 16% payload boost.
But Electron got batteries upgraded at least once (when 400WHr/kg existed I think), which along with other improvements, had increased payload to 300kg (80kg payload improvement).
-
I doubt that the upgrade that they already did was 400 Wh/kg.
But yes, this is a good point. I think at this point it would be more mass-efficient than the peroxide-based gas generators.