-
#1420
by
TrevorMonty
on 23 Sep, 2018 10:39
-
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.
-
#1421
by
speedevil
on 23 Sep, 2018 12:03
-
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.
-
#1422
by
TrevorMonty
on 23 Sep, 2018 18:48
-
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%.
-
#1423
by
speedevil
on 23 Sep, 2018 21:25
-
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.
-
#1424
by
sanman
on 06 Nov, 2018 14:10
-
So when the batteries are dropped, do they just end up at the bottom of the ocean?
-
#1425
by
Comga
on 06 Nov, 2018 15:00
-
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)
-
#1426
by
tyrred
on 06 Nov, 2018 17:18
-
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?
-
#1427
by
pippin
on 07 Nov, 2018 19:06
-
There‘s a difference between a battery and a rechargeable battery.
-
#1428
by
speedevil
on 07 Nov, 2018 19:15
-
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)
-
#1429
by
CameronD
on 07 Nov, 2018 22:23
-
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.
-
#1430
by
sanman
on 07 Nov, 2018 23:43
-
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?
-
#1431
by
QuantumG
on 07 Nov, 2018 23:50
-
I doubt it. They're more interested in innovating on-orbit. I wouldn't be surprised if they started buying launches from other companies!
-
#1432
by
speedevil
on 08 Nov, 2018 00:09
-
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.
-
#1433
by
CameronD
on 08 Nov, 2018 02:52
-
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.
-
#1434
by
QuantumG
on 08 Nov, 2018 03:15
-
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.
-
#1435
by
gin455res
on 08 Nov, 2018 07:30
-
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)
-
#1436
by
catdlr
on 04 Dec, 2018 00:11
-
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.
-
#1437
by
TrevorMonty
on 12 Dec, 2018 17:46
-
-
#1438
by
catdlr
on 15 Dec, 2018 03:39
-
Venture Class Rockets First Class Flights for CubeSatsNASA
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
-
#1439
by
e of pi
on 16 Dec, 2018 06:14
-
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).
(Inside joke about the protest filed)