-
#280
by
Katana
on 27 Jul, 2015 16:30
-
-
#281
by
TrevorMonty
on 27 Jul, 2015 18:31
-
Why the company goes USA?
Here is one of reasons Rocket lab is launch from NZ. Of cause manufacturing here, exchange rate, quiet airspace and CEO being NZer are big factors.
http://www.wired.com/2015/07/feds-big-problem-private-rocket-launches/
Being US registered company allows them to launch US govt payloads. For DOD launches they may need a US factory and launch pads.
-
#282
by
BowShock
on 31 Jul, 2015 15:19
-
-
#283
by
TrevorMonty
on 01 Aug, 2015 00:13
-
-
#284
by
QuantumG
on 01 Aug, 2015 00:25
-
They'll be another boring NASA contractor in no time.
-
#285
by
Lars-J
on 01 Aug, 2015 19:40
-
They'll be another boring NASA contractor in no time.
If no one else is paying, then why not?
-
#286
by
QuantumG
on 01 Aug, 2015 22:52
-
If no one else is paying, then why not?
How to tell if a startup is truly "commercial" or a government contractor still breaking out of the egg: do they have sales people? Is that who you talked to at the conference? If not, they don't want your money.
-
#287
by
Darkseraph
on 01 Aug, 2015 23:35
-
^Yaaaack!
The commercial aspect of commercial space is not who the customers are, but who designs, owns and operates the vehicles; Who sets and controls the internal management structure of the companies and so forth.
It is a facile cheap shot to condemn companies that operate in this relatively marginal sector of the economy for accepting money to provide services to the the biggest single customer in that market. Most people would call that being a savvy businessman.
When governments, who were responsible for the development of most of these systems in the 20th Century buy your services, it sends out a good message to other possible customers. NASA, The U.S Air Force or another Space Agency saying you're a cool guy and good to go..... helps build credibility, weirdly enough.
We could have immaculate, ideologically pure space startups who would accept no money from governments...but then we'd quickly have both no space startups followed swiftly by no new methods/technologies to increase the accessibility of outerspace. It will be decades before governments decline in their share of the market to being no more important than anyone else for the planning of a startup.
I've heard such arguments being used to decry how Apollo stunted going to the Moon because of centralized state bureaucracy; that if it had been 100% left up private enterprise, we'd been there cheaper, better and faster. However if we'd actually gone with that plan, we'd definitely have had to fake the Moon landings!
I say Godspeed to them, because the costs/risks are so high and the probable returns so low/negative, that fledgling companies like this must fight for every penny they can get or go bust! See below:
<---------------Realism /
Ideological Purity--------------->
-
#288
by
QuantumG
on 01 Aug, 2015 23:40
-
Actually, we can't have ideologically pure space startups that don't take any government money... and that's the problem. Everyone who has tried to do that has been squashed into the ground by the powers that be. Either you cooperate or you're out of business. Rocketlab are learning that, and it's sad to watch.
-
#289
by
topsphere
on 02 Aug, 2015 00:05
-
Actually, we can't have ideologically pure space startups that don't take any government money... and that's the problem. Everyone who has tried to do that has been squashed into the ground by the powers that be. Either you cooperate or you're out of business. Rocketlab are learning that, and it's sad to watch.
And how, in your opinion, do we solve this problem?
Rocketlab seem to be progressing nicely and filling their own little niche.
-
#290
by
QuantumG
on 02 Aug, 2015 00:08
-
And how, in your opinion, do we solve this problem?
Why would you assume I know?
Rocketlab seem to be progressing nicely and filling their own little niche.
How do you figure? So far they're progressing like every other launch startup except SpaceX, none of which have gotten to space. Think about what that niche is, get it firmly in your head, and watch as it slowly goes away over the next few years.
-
#291
by
Darkseraph
on 02 Aug, 2015 00:09
-
Sure, but ideological purity is not the magic wand that makes that problem go away. The problem is mostly an aspect of the inherent characteristics of the specific technologies themselves at this stage in their development. They are not like other technologies America loves to export everywhere, like say: Airplanes, Cars and Computers!
The wand that makes that go away is these companies being able to get in the door in the first place without keeling over, so they can develop technologies like reusability, cheaper assembly and components. And that will be a slow and ugly process for the time being. But that's greatly preferable to nothing.
If you enacted Rapture tomorrow as the basis of government, you would still not get a booming space market launching 30m Sea Dragons from private aquatic enterprise to Elysium in orbit! Totally sans-government interference, or any other potential boogeymen, smart enough capitalists would do a quick mental calculation of risk vs reward at this stage of the technology and decide this is not a short term cash cow and I will probably lose multiple millions; As Mitt Romney elegantly put it : "You're Fired!"
I'll be keeping tabs on this company for the next couple of years, and I hope the best for them.
-
#292
by
Lars-J
on 02 Aug, 2015 00:25
-
Actually, we can't have ideologically pure space startups that don't take any government money... and that's the problem. Everyone who has tried to do that has been squashed into the ground by the powers that be. Either you cooperate or you're out of business. Rocketlab are learning that, and it's sad to watch.
Perhaps there is some grand conspiracy, or perhaps the grand smallsat market you champion... just isn't there?
-
#293
by
QuantumG
on 02 Aug, 2015 00:39
-
Perhaps there is some grand conspiracy, or perhaps the grand smallsat market you champion... just isn't there?
and perhaps you've never gone to a space conference and spoken to person after person who can't get a launch. The pent-up demand for smallsat launch is real.. it's
clearly a supply problem, and everyone know this.
-
#294
by
TrevorMonty
on 02 Aug, 2015 06:34
-
I don't think Rocket lab are relying on NASA business to be successful, not even sure if they can launch NASA payloads from NZ.
The NASA connection is more about having access to NASA's new small LV pad facilities at the Cape.
-
#295
by
Lars-J
on 03 Aug, 2015 06:44
-
Perhaps there is some grand conspiracy, or perhaps the grand smallsat market you champion... just isn't there?
and perhaps you've never gone to a space conference and spoken to person after person who can't get a launch. The pent-up demand for smallsat launch is real.. it's clearly a supply problem, and everyone know this.
No. If all those people you encounter at space conferences were willing to pony up the current asking price (even the low numbers these new providers claim to offer), there would be no issue. The market would be self-evident. But they clearly aren't. It is
clearly a funding issue. Or?
I'd love to go to space. As would millions of people. But we aren't willing to (or cannot) pay $20+ million per person and the hassle of months of russian training to do it. So very few people are actually doing it. You could call that a supply problem if you want - but that is being very simplistic.
-
#296
by
QuantumG
on 03 Aug, 2015 08:18
-
What are you talking about? The problem is - and has been for years - that there isn't enough smallsat launch providers. There's been Pegasus and Dnepr-1, both of which are mostly unavailable these days, and there's ride shares. There's a long line of people waiting for a reliable launch provider, but the same thing tends to happen to all of them - they get deals for bigger payload launches and their attention moves. The same thing will happen to Rocketlab. The reason so many people thought LauncherOne would be different is because of the inherent limitation of WhiteKnightTwo.. then, surprise surprise, Stratolaunch comes along and now VG are planning to leapfrog to a LauncherTwo, leaving the smallsats in the lurch again. The problem isn't demand, it's that everyone who starts on the path to actually fielding a smallsat launcher gets offered development bucks and it's a lot easier to just keep on developing than it is to actually start flying.
-
#297
by
strangequark
on 03 Aug, 2015 14:50
-
What are you talking about? The problem is - and has been for years - that there isn't enough smallsat launch providers. There's been Pegasus and Dnepr-1, both of which are mostly unavailable these days, and there's ride shares. There's a long line of people waiting for a reliable launch provider, but the same thing tends to happen to all of them - they get deals for bigger payload launches and their attention moves. The same thing will happen to Rocketlab. The reason so many people thought LauncherOne would be different is because of the inherent limitation of WhiteKnightTwo.. then, surprise surprise, Stratolaunch comes along and now VG are planning to leapfrog to a LauncherTwo, leaving the smallsats in the lurch again. The problem isn't demand, it's that everyone who starts on the path to actually fielding a smallsat launcher gets offered development bucks and it's a lot easier to just keep on developing than it is to actually start flying.
So, there's a massive untapped market of smallsats that desperately need launches, and no one is providing? Where's your business plan? Sounds like a fine opportunity.
-
#298
by
Lars-J
on 03 Aug, 2015 20:54
-
What are you talking about? The problem is - and has been for years - that there isn't enough smallsat launch providers. There's been Pegasus and Dnepr-1, both of which are mostly unavailable these days, and there's ride shares.
And why are Pegasus and Dnepr-1 unavailable? Perhaps it might be because not enough *actual* customers (vs people who claim to be) are showing up? I'm sure OrbitalATK would be happy to fly a Pegasus payload, if someone actually wanted to pay for it.
-
#299
by
TrevorMonty
on 04 Aug, 2015 06:26
-
Here is another local article, little info on launch pad restrictions.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/top/280016/rocket-lab-a-step-closer-to-lift-offI did read one article where they quoted Beck as having 30 launches booked, another with 2 years of launches booked and yet another saying they had 30 potential customers.
I doubt all 3 are wrong, there is definitely a pentup demand for these small LVs. Whether there is enough long term demand to sustain the competing LVs in development, remains to been seen.
