-
#1000
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 31 May, 2017 06:21
-
Electron launch animation:
-
#1001
by
lars.lauritsen.1
on 31 May, 2017 19:27
-
This is so impressive stuff 😘👍
Sendt fra min F8331 med Tapatalk
-
#1002
by
Phil Stooke
on 31 May, 2017 21:58
-
"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.
-
#1003
by
gongora
on 01 Jun, 2017 15:50
-
Once-flagging Alaska space business shows signs of liftoffToday, 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.
-
#1004
by
chalz
on 02 Jun, 2017 22:33
-
Electron launch animation:
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.
-
#1005
by
HVM
on 05 Jun, 2017 18:18
-
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
-
#1006
by
Zingpc
on 11 Jun, 2017 09:51
-
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.
-
#1007
by
Zingpc
on 11 Jun, 2017 22:53
-
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.
-
#1008
by
Zingpc
on 11 Jun, 2017 23:07
-
That seems to show the rocket spinning before and after MECO.
No spin in this animation which proves the spin was a gremlin.
-
#1009
by
Lars-J
on 12 Jun, 2017 06:10
-
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.
-
#1010
by
QuantumG
on 12 Jun, 2017 06:15
-
... and they'll probably just ride that hype to a bigger launcher.
-
#1011
by
DrRobin
on 12 Jun, 2017 06:34
-
"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.
-
#1012
by
Nilof
on 13 Jun, 2017 04:41
-
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.
-
#1013
by
Zingpc
on 13 Jun, 2017 22:56
-
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.
-
#1014
by
gongora
on 13 Jun, 2017 23:26
-
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?
-
#1015
by
savuporo
on 14 Jun, 2017 01:27
-
..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.
-
#1016
by
Zingpc
on 14 Jun, 2017 02:38
-
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.
-
#1017
by
QuantumG
on 14 Jun, 2017 02:56
-
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.
-
#1018
by
Gliderflyer
on 14 Jun, 2017 04:56
-
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.
-
#1019
by
jongoff
on 14 Jun, 2017 06:00
-
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
