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! 
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!
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/
"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.
"Green monopropellant". Interesting. Any clues anywhere? Hydroxylammonium nitrate? Is NOFBX "green"?
LMP-103S a blend based on Ammonium dinitramide as it's main ingridient.
Has been flown the ESA PRISMA ((Prototype Research Instruments and Space Mission technology Advancement)
https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/p/prisma-prototypeEdit: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/
"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 hes 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.
Sounds like it's chemically similar to solids but with granules suspended in a liquid.
https://www.google.com/patents/US20120234196This 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 hes 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.
