-
#340 by Alf Fass on 04 Oct, 2015 18:43
-
Here are two more articles on it. We have name for it MX-1E (E for Electron??).
Made up of 2 small (identical??) landers first one acts as booster to get it out of LEO.
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/01/moon-express-rockets-closer-to-planned-lunar-landing.html
http://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/nzs-rocket-lab-signs-contract-company-planning-moonshots-2017
I posted this on MoonExpress thread, trying stop Rocket lab becoming about MX-1E. Think carefully about thread you use to reply.
"Moon Express wants to launch two moonshots in 2017 using one of Rocket Lab's low-cost Electron Rockets, with a third at a later date."
'Rocket Lab’s manifest in 2017 and has contracted for a third launch at a time to be determined, with options for a fourth and fifth launch. The launches would accommodate Moon Express’ commercial payloads – and also give the venture more than one crack at winning the X Prize.
“Hopefully we nail it on the first time,” Richards said. “But as you know, space is hard.”
Looking like RocketLab is being operated by some serious management. The launch market is also taking them seriously.
This contract doesn't give evidence of either of these things.
Google Lunar X-Prize contestants are desperately scrambling right now. None of their announced plans for launches have been materializing. The original deadline to win was 2014. All the contestants were clearly going to fail to meet that deadline, so it was extended to the end of 2015. And it's still clear nobody is going to meet the extended deadline. So the deadline is being extended again, by two more years, but only if the contestants can show an actual launch contract by the end of 2015.
So, you have contestants who have been working on their projects for years and who are going to die in a few months unless they can produce a launch contract.
On the other hand, you have RocketLab, who has never launched anything and little evidence they have any customers. So RocketLab is clearly also in desperate need of a customer to show off.
It's no surprise that a desperate would-be customer would sign with a desperate would-be launch provider. Neither of them has anything to lose, and a lot to gain, just by signing the contract, even if there's little chance Moon Express can actually pay for the launch and little chance RocketLab can actually execute the launch.
So, I don't think this demonstrates "serious management" on the part of RocketLab or that the "launch market" is taking them seriously.
I agree that this contract demonstrates little, however, other recent events around Rocket Lab, the hardware they've been able the show, and feedback and support from people and organizations they've been dealing with, means I've no doubt they're serious and will be getting PL's into orbit within 2 years. -
#341 by ChrisWilson68 on 06 Oct, 2015 06:34
-
Making a "contract" between two companies is a serious matter.
False.
There's a vast range of different kinds of contracts between companies. Some are just for show, so they can issue a joint press release. I've seen it first hand while working at a company doing exactly this.It gets into legal matters and that most times requires attorney's fees.
But not very high attorneys' fees.So funds for legal should have been expended. Further, most companies would require some sort of deposit, even its a "good faith" deposit.
No, there are lots of agreements signed between companies with no deposit involved. These agreements are followed by announcements about the agreements. The point of the contract is to announce it.
I see this happen all the time between start-up tech companies.
Unless they announce the terms, we have no way of knowing the terms of this contract. To assume there is likely to be a deposit is not logical.
-
#342 by Alf Fass on 06 Oct, 2015 07:31
-
From NASAWATCH: "Here's what Chanda Gonzales, Senior Director, Google Lunar XPRIZE said on the contract issue "Our decision is based on a holistic assessment of whether the launch contract is genuine, whether there are any legal issues that might pop up, whether there are any obvious non-compliances with the rules, and whether a substantial commitment was made by both the team and the launch provider (e.g. non-refundable deposit of some certain minimum value)." "
My bold.
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2015/10/google-lunar-x-4.html -
#343 by ChrisWilson68 on 06 Oct, 2015 10:31
-
From NASAWATCH: "Here's what Chanda Gonzales, Senior Director, Google Lunar XPRIZE said on the contract issue "Our decision is based on a holistic assessment of whether the launch contract is genuine, whether there are any legal issues that might pop up, whether there are any obvious non-compliances with the rules, and whether a substantial commitment was made by both the team and the launch provider (e.g. non-refundable deposit of some certain minimum value)." "
My bold.
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2015/10/google-lunar-x-4.html
And we haven't heard yet what that decision is.
-
#344 by ChrisWilson68 on 07 Oct, 2015 18:41
-
From NASAWATCH: "Here's what Chanda Gonzales, Senior Director, Google Lunar XPRIZE said on the contract issue "Our decision is based on a holistic assessment of whether the launch contract is genuine, whether there are any legal issues that might pop up, whether there are any obvious non-compliances with the rules, and whether a substantial commitment was made by both the team and the launch provider (e.g. non-refundable deposit of some certain minimum value)." "
My bold.
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2015/10/google-lunar-x-4.html
And we haven't heard yet what that decision is.
Note that now SpaceIL, another Google Lunar X-Prize competitor, has bought a slot on a rideshare on a Falcon 9, and the contest organizers have certified SpaceIL as the "first and only" team to have an approved launch contract:“We are proud to officially confirm receipt and verification of SpaceIL’s launch contract, positioning them as the first and only Google Lunar XPRIZE team to demonstrate this important achievement, thus far,” said Bob Weiss, vice chairman and president of XPRIZE. “The magnitude of this achievement cannot be overstated, representing an unprecedented and monumental commitment for a privately-funded organization, and kicks off an exciting phase of the competition in which the other 15 teams now have until the end of 2016 to produce their own verified launch contracts.
So why hasn't the X-Prize organization approved the Moon Express contract? At this point, it's looking like the X-Prize people at least have some doubts and at worst think the Moon Express contract doesn't meet their standards for being a "real" launch contract.
-
#345 by QuantumG on 08 Oct, 2015 07:41
-
Is there a reason for your personal vendetta against RocketLab or are you just bored?
-
#346 by ChrisWilson68 on 08 Oct, 2015 07:54
-
Is there a reason for your personal vendetta against RocketLab or are you just bored?
There's no personal vendetta.
-
#347 by CameronD on 08 Oct, 2015 23:03
-
Is there a reason for your personal vendetta against RocketLab or are you just bored?
There's no personal vendetta.
Must be bored then..
FWIW, I hear on the grapevine that they're still busily working away, building stuff, buying stuff, getting set up and still aiming for a first launch by the end of the year.
-
#348 by a_langwich on 08 Oct, 2015 23:33
-
Is there a reason for your personal vendetta against RocketLab or are you just bored?
There's no personal vendetta.
Must be bored then..
Every person on this forum probably fits that definition of bored, most certainly including QuantumG and yourself.
He's calling it like he sees it. I think he's substantially right. But hey, just because it's accurate to say a horse is a 50-1 longshot doesn't mean we can't pull for it and hope it wins. -
#349 by Prober on 09 Oct, 2015 02:13
-
not sure if anyone posted this yet......
https://news.yahoo.com/video/firm-uses-3-d-printed-225000034.html
decent video
NSF Linkage to the engine
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34421.msg1359569#msg1359569
-
#350 by ChrisWilson68 on 09 Oct, 2015 05:23
-
Is there a reason for your personal vendetta against RocketLab or are you just bored?
There's no personal vendetta.
Must be bored then.. :D
Every person on this forum probably fits that definition of bored, most certainly including QuantumG and yourself. :D
He's calling it like he sees it. I think he's substantially right. But hey, just because it's accurate to say a horse is a 50-1 longshot doesn't mean we can't pull for it and hope it wins.
Yeah, exactly. RocketLab is a longshot, but it has a shot. It has a far better chance than most start-up space companies. I'd be thrilled to see them succeed.
But that doesn't mean people should shy away from pointing out the negatives. The companies themselves only point out the most positive versions of things in their public statements. It's up to the rest of us to give those statements a reality check.
-
#351 by Alf Fass on 09 Oct, 2015 05:49
-
Yeah, exactly. RocketLab is a longshot, but it has a shot. It has a far better chance than most start-up space companies. I'd be thrilled to see them succeed.
But that doesn't mean people should shy away from pointing out the negatives. The companies themselves only point out the most positive versions of things in their public statements. It's up to the rest of us to give those statements a reality check.
You (or at least I) often get a vibe from these start-ups after they've been working at their systems for a few years, things are either happening and the company Heads seem focused, or, as with Virgin Galactic, there seems to be an endless series of problems and hiccups, and the Heads need to try to talk things up - often they actually appear to be trying to talk themselves into being positive.
The vibe I get from Rocket Lab is that they've got the backing they need, things are going well, they're focused, what they have been doing is working, they mean what they say, and they aren't just blowing smoke like so many others.
I give them a 90% chance of a successful launch within 6 months. My other hot tip is Blue Origin. -
#352 by john smith 19 on 09 Oct, 2015 07:06
-
You (or at least I) often get a vibe from these start-ups after they've been working at their systems for a few years, things are either happening and the company Heads seem focused, or, as with Virgin Galactic, there seems to be an endless series of problems and hiccups, and the Heads need to try to talk things up - often they actually appear to be trying to talk themselves into being positive.
In some ways VG's goals are more limited, but in others much more ambitious.
Actually something similar could be said of Blue as well, given their fondness for discretion.QuoteThe vibe I get from Rocket Lab is that they've got the backing they need, things are going well, they're focused, what they have been doing is working, they mean what they say, and they aren't just blowing smoke like so many others.
I saw the video you referenced. So the key facts (as far as there are any mentioned)
Turbo pump drive motor is "Size of soda can" and generates 50Hp or 37700W of power.
Carries "1 Mega Watt" of batteries.
Watts are a unit of power, energy per unit time. Joules are a unit of energy. If he meant Joules that's about 26secs of running time driving that motor.
Is this guy the CEO?Quote
That's neat. Link a rank outsider with a front runner to suggest they are both front runners.
I give them a 90% chance of a successful launch within 6 months. My other hot tip is Blue Origin.
Well this
http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/missions/commercial/rocket-lab-electron-rutherford-peter-beck-started-first-place/
says they're aiming for late December 2015. We'll see.
As for what's 3d printed on this engine, the video showed nothing about that. TBH on this scale I'd probably go CNC and use the laser deposition to make expendable formers for lost wax casting. May have done this, may not. But turbo pumps scale down badly and the claimed thrust 4600lbs is near the top of the reasonable range for piston pumps, according to John Whitehead's team at Livermore.
Rocket Lab are claiming electron deposition of metal for the chamber. That's something LM have trialed through a sub contractor. IIRC such suppliers are very few and very far between. It is a long way from mainstream 3d printing.
IOW very expensive. You're going to need phenomenal performance benefits or a very good deal on bulk orders to make that a good design decision.
I note they have made a sounding rocket launch. It'd be interesting to see if that was a liquid fueled vehicle of basic design to this rocket or completely different tech. If the same then they've already retired significant risk.
They certainly talk a very good game and (unlike Orbital) they are not at the mercy of a supplier/partner for a key part of their stages, so should not be subject to 100% price rises.
Let's see what happens in December. -
#353 by Alf Fass on 09 Oct, 2015 07:55
-
You (or at least I) often get a vibe from these start-ups after they've been working at their systems for a few years, things are either happening and the company Heads seem focused, or, as with Virgin Galactic, there seems to be an endless series of problems and hiccups, and the Heads need to try to talk things up - often they actually appear to be trying to talk themselves into being positive.
In some ways VG's goals are more limited, but in others much more ambitious.
Actually something similar could be said of Blue as well, given their fondness for discretion.QuoteThe vibe I get from Rocket Lab is that they've got the backing they need, things are going well, they're focused, what they have been doing is working, they mean what they say, and they aren't just blowing smoke like so many others.
I saw the video you referenced. So the key facts (as far as there are any mentioned)
Turbo pump drive motor is "Size of soda can" and generates 50Hp or 37700W of power.
Carries "1 Mega Watt" of batteries.
Watts are a unit of power, energy per unit time. Joules are a unit of energy. If he meant Joules that's about 26secs of running time driving that motor.
Is this guy the CEO?Quote
That's neat. Link a rank outsider with a front runner to suggest they are both front runners.
I give them a 90% chance of a successful launch within 6 months. My other hot tip is Blue Origin.
Well this
http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/missions/commercial/rocket-lab-electron-rutherford-peter-beck-started-first-place/
says they're aiming for late December 2015. We'll see.
As for what's 3d printed on this engine, the video showed nothing about that. TBH on this scale I'd probably go CNC and use the laser deposition to make expendable formers for lost wax casting. May have done this, may not. But turbo pumps scale down badly and the claimed thrust 4600lbs is near the top of the reasonable range for piston pumps, according to John Whitehead's team at Livermore.
Rocket Lab are claiming electron deposition of metal for the chamber. That's something LM have trialed through a sub contractor. IIRC such suppliers are very few and very far between. It is a long way from mainstream 3d printing.
IOW very expensive. You're going to need phenomenal performance benefits or a very good deal on bulk orders to make that a good design decision.
I note they have made a sounding rocket launch. It'd be interesting to see if that was a liquid fueled vehicle of basic design to this rocket or completely different tech. If the same then they've already retired significant risk.
They certainly talk a very good game and (unlike Orbital) they are not at the mercy of a supplier/partner for a key part of their stages, so should not be subject to 100% price rises.
Let's see what happens in December.
The "one megawatt" thing had me puzzled, I think he's referring to the total power available from the batteries of all the engines, about 3 times the power that's theoretically required.
I didn't reference a video.
"Rocket Lab are claiming electron deposition of metal for the chamber." No, they're using EBM.
"But turbo pumps scale down badly"
They're using a battery powered rotodynamic pump, the bit in a turbo pump that scales badly is the turbine, and controlling it with adequate precision.
"and the claimed thrust 4600lbs is near the top of the reasonable range for piston pumps, according to John Whitehead's team at Livermore. "
I'm not sure what you're talking about there, they're not using piston pumps.
-
#354 by Alf Fass on 09 Oct, 2015 08:48
-
I was wondering about the weight of the batteries to power the pumps, using the 342kw power demand for the 9 first stage engines and assuming a first stage burn of 150s, I get a required capacity of 500,000,000J, at 0.5mJ/kg that's a first stage battery weight of 100kg.
-
#355 by notsorandom on 09 Oct, 2015 13:30
-
You (or at least I) often get a vibe from these start-ups after they've been working at their systems for a few years, things are either happening and the company Heads seem focused, or, as with Virgin Galactic, there seems to be an endless series of problems and hiccups, and the Heads need to try to talk things up - often they actually appear to be trying to talk themselves into being positive.
RocketLab has been working on their product in a very direct way. They are taking a big chance with their chosen propulsion. Though electric pumps are easy to test out. If there were any show stoppers they seem like they could pivot to another approach. It can be hard to know when what you've been working on for years just won't work versus putting a bit more effort in and getting it to work. One of VG's main problems is that they are more focused on the methods and technology they started with than the goal they started with. Whenever they get someone to space it will involve air launch, feathering, and a hybrid engine. VG hasn't been receptive to other ideas which might accomplish their goals better.
The vibe I get from Rocket Lab is that they've got the backing they need, things are going well, they're focused, what they have been doing is working, they mean what they say, and they aren't just blowing smoke like so many others.
I give them a 90% chance of a successful launch within 6 months. My other hot tip is Blue Origin. -
#356 by ChrisWilson68 on 09 Oct, 2015 13:40
-
RocketLab started work in 2007 and that year is very interesting for many reasons. SpaceX started in 2006, BlueO 2005 so each company runs in their own timeline/path.
SpaceX was founded in 2002. Blue Origin was founded in 2000.
The first Falcon 1 launch attempt was in 2006 and the first Blue Origin flight was 2005, so maybe that's what's confusing you. Those first launch dates shouldn't be compared with the founding date of RocketLab. The first launch date for RocketLab hasn't even occurred yet.
-
#357 by TrevorMonty on 09 Oct, 2015 14:16
-
There has been nothing on the web about Rocket lab beginning construction on pad
-
#358 by Prober on 09 Oct, 2015 14:17
-
RocketLab started work in 2007 and that year is very interesting for many reasons. SpaceX started in 2006, BlueO 2005 so each company runs in their own timeline/path.
SpaceX was founded in 2002. Blue Origin was founded in 2000.
The first Falcon 1 launch attempt was in 2006 and the first Blue Origin flight was 2005, so maybe that's what's confusing you. Those first launch dates shouldn't be compared with the founding date of RocketLab. The first launch date for RocketLab hasn't even occurred yet.
BO is in testing.
SpaceX isn't launching anything, and the New F9 has never launched what's your point?
-
#359 by savuporo on 09 Oct, 2015 15:33
-
I was wondering about the weight of the batteries to power the pumps, using the 342kw power demand for the 9 first stage engines and assuming a first stage burn of 150s, I get a required capacity of 500,000,000J, at 0.5mJ/kg that's a first stage battery weight of 100kg.
You are assuming standard~ish 150wh/kg or so, which is a fair guess. However, apparently one can do better these days
http://www.totalbatteryconsulting.com/industry-reports/Tesla-report/Extract-from-the-Tesla-battery-report.pdf
