-
#1460
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 04 Aug, 2020 16:08
-
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/
-
#1461
by
edzieba
on 04 Aug, 2020 18:26
-
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.
-
#1462
by
Kansan52
on 04 Aug, 2020 18:32
-
Sounds a lot like the Armadillo Aerospace suborbital plans.
-
#1463
by
TrevorMonty
on 04 Aug, 2020 19:28
-
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.
-
#1464
by
Asteroza
on 04 Aug, 2020 23:33
-
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).
-
#1465
by
Scylla
on 05 Aug, 2020 02:17
-
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.
-
#1466
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 05 Aug, 2020 10:03
-
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
-
#1467
by
MATTBLAK
on 05 Aug, 2020 11:25
-
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?
-
#1468
by
TrevorMonty
on 05 Aug, 2020 17:27
-
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.
-
#1469
by
Robotbeat
on 05 Aug, 2020 18:35
-
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).
-
#1470
by
Nomadd
on 05 Aug, 2020 21:33
-
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?
-
#1471
by
snotis
on 05 Aug, 2020 23:11
-
-
#1472
by
LtWigglesworth
on 06 Aug, 2020 01:00
-
-
#1473
by
yg1968
on 06 Aug, 2020 01:34
-
-
#1474
by
Zed_Noir
on 06 Aug, 2020 10:35
-
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.
-
#1475
by
Robotbeat
on 06 Aug, 2020 14:44
-
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.
-
#1476
by
high road
on 06 Aug, 2020 19:42
-
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)
-
#1477
by
M.E.T.
on 07 Aug, 2020 07:46
-
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.
-
#1478
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 07 Aug, 2020 14:00
-
-
#1479
by
edzieba
on 10 Aug, 2020 14:08
-
