RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher

#1500 by TrevorMonty on 09 Aug, 2022 05:53
Quote from: M.E.T. on 09 Aug, 2022 03:40
Quote from: trimeta on 09 Aug, 2022 03:25
Quote from: M.E.T. on 09 Aug, 2022 02:26
A quick count over on the SpaceX manifest thread gives me around 35 non-Starlink launches for SpaceX in 2022. And that’s WITHOUT any of the 83 Kuiper launches.

So why is SpaceX able to hit 35 external launches a year but any other rocket is “limited to 10-15”?

Clearly it’s not about the market, but about having the right rocket at the right price.

35 external-payload launches in a year would be very unusual, given that SpaceX launched six such missions in 2021 (not counting the two Transporter missions, three Crew Dragon missions, two Cargo Dragon missions, and two Starlink missions which had rideshares, all of which fall into "SpaceX making their own missions"). I suspect this is largely due to the sudden unavailability of Soyuz, and doesn't represent a general pattern of Falcon 9's ability to capture market share in a world where literally any other rocket is available.

In other words, it's having the right rocket at the right price at the right time, specifically a time when you have total market monopoly. It's understandable that no one else is counting on that happening for them.

Tim Ellis seems to be very bullish on the addressable market.
Relativity has $1.2B orders andcmore in pipeline so he good grounds to be bullish.
#1501 by trimeta on 09 Aug, 2022 06:05
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 09 Aug, 2022 05:53
Quote from: M.E.T. on 09 Aug, 2022 03:40
Quote from: trimeta on 09 Aug, 2022 03:25
Quote from: M.E.T. on 09 Aug, 2022 02:26
A quick count over on the SpaceX manifest thread gives me around 35 non-Starlink launches for SpaceX in 2022. And that’s WITHOUT any of the 83 Kuiper launches.

So why is SpaceX able to hit 35 external launches a year but any other rocket is “limited to 10-15”?

Clearly it’s not about the market, but about having the right rocket at the right price.

35 external-payload launches in a year would be very unusual, given that SpaceX launched six such missions in 2021 (not counting the two Transporter missions, three Crew Dragon missions, two Cargo Dragon missions, and two Starlink missions which had rideshares, all of which fall into "SpaceX making their own missions"). I suspect this is largely due to the sudden unavailability of Soyuz, and doesn't represent a general pattern of Falcon 9's ability to capture market share in a world where literally any other rocket is available.

In other words, it's having the right rocket at the right price at the right time, specifically a time when you have total market monopoly. It's understandable that no one else is counting on that happening for them.

Tim Ellis seems to be very bullish on the addressable market.
Relativity has $1.2B orders andcmore in pipeline so he good grounds to be bullish.

At $60 million per launch, that's 20 launches. And they're probably spread over more than one year. Which is still good for Relativity, don't get me wrong, but it's perfectly consistent with expecting 10-15 commercially-competed launches annually.
#1502 by trimeta on 11 Aug, 2022 22:40
Interesting tidbit I found in the Q2 2022 10-Q filling:

Quote
We built approximately eight launch vehicles in 2020 and approximately eight launch vehicles in 2021. We anticipate we will build approximately twelve to fifteen launch vehicles in 2022.

This more or less confirms that they're building Electrons faster than they can find customers ready and willing to fly on them, although it doesn't entirely match the "spare Electrons stacking up like cordwood in the factory" image that some of their talk of build cadence has implied.
#1503 by Asteroza on 23 Mar, 2023 23:04
Under the "improving batteries improve Electron" thesis, where installing improved batteries functionally improves payload with a small amount of effort and minimal rocket redesign...

For the original 220kg payload Electron, stage 1 supposedly is a 1MW powerpack around 200kg, but I don't have a handy energy density number for the current pack. Somebody's rough guess estimates were

Quote
F1 engine 6770kN thrust and 41MW turbo-pump = ~6kW/kN pump power per unit thrust.
For the 1st stage of the Electron that translates to 6kW/kN x 183kN = 1098kW
With ~160 sec burn time from full duration engine test that requires 1098kW x 160/3600hr = 49kWh.
Lithium Polymer batteries have energy densities up to 265Wh/kg = 185kg battery.

which mostly squares up with the 200kg stage 1 battery pack comments.

but someone else pointed out each rutherford is 2x50hp motors, so power is 671kW, thus 29.8 kWh needed?

Stage two burns for 5 minutes with one engine (183kN/9 so 122kW), so 10.16kWhr. Original 265Wh/kg guess leads to a second stage battery pack mass of 38.3kg. Some comments have said overall battery pack mass is 250kg, so with S1 at 200kg you can guess S2 is 50kg as a rough approximation, which roughly fits.

So, Amprius is announcing 500 Wh/kg, 1300 Wh/L per cell type lithium-ion batteries

https://amprius.com/the-all-new-amprius-500-wh-kg-battery-platform-is-here/

So while that is per cell, which gets worse as you build up a whole battery pack, but for the sake of numbers that's roughly double the power density. But for a first stage, you get roughly a 10kg mass drop to 1kg payload gain. So roughly 10kg of payload gained from stage 1 improvement. But second stage is more 1:1 ratio.

So rough guess, if original 220kg payload Electron were getting these new batteries results in at least (100kg/10 and 25kg=35kg) payload boost WITH NO OTHER IMPROVEMENTS. 16% payload boost.

But Electron got batteries upgraded at least once (when 400WHr/kg existed I think), which along with other improvements, had increased payload to 300kg (80kg payload improvement).
#1504 by Robotbeat on 24 Mar, 2023 01:29
I doubt that the upgrade that they already did was 400 Wh/kg.

But yes, this is a good point. I think at this point it would be more mass-efficient than the peroxide-based gas generators.