-
#1320
by
ringsider
on 21 Mar, 2018 22:29
-
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.
-
#1321
by
ringsider
on 21 Mar, 2018 22:32
-
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
-
#1322
by
jamesh9000
on 22 Mar, 2018 23:52
-
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
-
#1323
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 27 Mar, 2018 00:49
-
-
#1324
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 04 Apr, 2018 20:42
-
-
#1325
by
ringsider
on 06 Apr, 2018 06:52
-
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_labMostly 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.
-
#1326
by
john smith 19
on 06 Apr, 2018 15:47
-
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.
-
#1327
by
Katana
on 06 Apr, 2018 16:01
-
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
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.
-
#1328
by
Davidthefat
on 06 Apr, 2018 16:05
-
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.
-
#1329
by
TrevorMonty
on 06 Apr, 2018 16:19
-
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.
-
#1330
by
WindnWar
on 06 Apr, 2018 16:33
-
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.
-
#1331
by
orulz
on 07 Apr, 2018 01:30
-
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.
-
#1332
by
john smith 19
on 07 Apr, 2018 08:45
-
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.
-
#1333
by
ringsider
on 07 Apr, 2018 10:25
-
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.
-
#1334
by
JH
on 07 Apr, 2018 15:12
-
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.
-
#1335
by
high road
on 07 Apr, 2018 16:24
-
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.
-
#1336
by
TrevorMonty
on 07 Apr, 2018 19:35
-
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.
-
#1337
by
Nilof
on 07 Apr, 2018 21:50
-
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.
-
#1338
by
Katana
on 08 Apr, 2018 14:09
-
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.
-
#1339
by
speedevil
on 08 Apr, 2018 20:29
-
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.