-
#380
by
TrevorMonty
on 14 Oct, 2015 02:50
-
This Terrestrial Return Vehicle which is design for quick returns of experiments from ISS, will be delivered by ISS cargo vehicles.
https://intuitivemachines.com/news/trv/Given the size of this vehicle it maybe possible for a small LV eg Electron to deliver it to space. For some experiments it may not even require a ISS visit, just a few hours or days in space.
-
#381
by
chipguy
on 14 Oct, 2015 16:48
-
BTW, RocketLab is not the only one choosing an electric pump for a smallsat launcher. If you click through the builders on this thread :
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38583.0
You'll find a few others. Ventions for example, who is prototyping for ALASA and also providing engineering services/components to some others
http://ventions.com/menu/
I doubt that the electric pumps will scale well to big first stage engines, and the optimization would go towards as short engine burns as possible
Why would a short burn be better? You need to pump exactly the same amount of fuel (1 tank full) up the same pressure gradient. So it's the same number of joules in either case. And it might be easier to get the power out of the battery over a longer time interval, favoring longer burns.
Indeed. Higher the current draw the higher the battery self-heating from internal resistance
so more of the stored energy is lost before reaching the pump motors for a given setup.
Optimizing the entire system is an interesting engineering problem crossing many disciplines.
-
#382
by
Comga
on 14 Oct, 2015 19:03
-
NASA Awards Venture Class Launch Services Contracts for CubeSat Satellites
NASA’s Launch Services Program (LSP) has awarded multiple Venture Class Launch Services (VCLS) contracts to provide small satellites (SmallSats) -- also called CubeSats, microsats or nanosatellites -- access to low-Earth orbit.
The three companies selected to provide these new commercial launch capabilities, and the value of their firm fixed-price contracts, are:
• Firefly Space Systems Inc. of Cedar Park, Texas, $5.5 million
• Rocket Lab USA Inc. of Los Angeles, $6.9 million• Virgin Galactic LLC of Long Beach, California, $4.7 million
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38583.msg1435883#msg1435883Edit: This seems to have been announced before, back on Sept 30:
http://spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=47906"VCLS is a Firm-Fixed Price contract for a dedicated launch service for U-Class satellites with NASA having sole responsibility for the payload on the launch vehicle."
That looks like a contracted launch, but without any indication of the date.
-
#383
by
Scylla
on 14 Oct, 2015 20:01
-
That looks like a contracted launch, but without any indication of the date.
Rocket Lab Wins $6.95M NASA Launch Contract
Rocket Lab has been awarded a Venture Class Launch Services contract from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The contract, valued at $6.95M, is for the launch of a NASA payload to low-Earth Orbit on one of Rocket Lab’s Electron launch vehicles. NASA’s payload is scheduled to fly on Electron’s fifth flight between late 2016 and early 2017.
http://www.rocketlabusa.com/rocket-lab-wins-6-95m-nasa-launch-contract/
-
#384
by
CameronD
on 14 Oct, 2015 22:50
-
NASA Awards Venture Class Launch Services Contracts for CubeSat Satellites
NASA’s Launch Services Program (LSP) has awarded multiple Venture Class Launch Services (VCLS) contracts to provide small satellites (SmallSats) -- also called CubeSats, microsats or nanosatellites -- access to low-Earth orbit.
The three companies selected to provide these new commercial launch capabilities, and the value of their firm fixed-price contracts, are:
• Firefly Space Systems Inc. of Cedar Park, Texas, $5.5 million
• Rocket Lab USA Inc. of Los Angeles, $6.9 million
• Virgin Galactic LLC of Long Beach, California, $4.7 million
So, remembering SpX's Falcon 1 drama, is it now SOP to award multi-million dollar fixed-price contacts to companies who haven't even flown a test article yet??
-
#385
by
catdlr
on 14 Oct, 2015 23:39
-
Rocket Lab USA Selected for Venture Class Launches
Published on Oct 14, 2015
Rocket Lab USA, based in Los Angeles, plans to use its carbon-composite Electron rocket to send CubeSats into space. The Electron is powered by Rocket Lab's Rutherford engine, a 3D printed engine that uses batteries to drive its pumps. Electron is designed to loft about 330 pounds to a 310-mile-high, sun-sychronous orbit, so the rocket can a combination of CubeSats or small satellites.
-
#386
by
Prober
on 16 Oct, 2015 13:04
-
NASA Awards Venture Class Launch Services Contracts for CubeSat Satellites
NASA’s Launch Services Program (LSP) has awarded multiple Venture Class Launch Services (VCLS) contracts to provide small satellites (SmallSats) -- also called CubeSats, microsats or nanosatellites -- access to low-Earth orbit.
The three companies selected to provide these new commercial launch capabilities, and the value of their firm fixed-price contracts, are:
• Firefly Space Systems Inc. of Cedar Park, Texas, $5.5 million
• Rocket Lab USA Inc. of Los Angeles, $6.9 million
• Virgin Galactic LLC of Long Beach, California, $4.7 million
So, remembering SpX's Falcon 1 drama, is it now SOP to award multi-million dollar fixed-price contacts to companies who haven't even flown a test article yet??
think this is the plan its called "commercial"
-
#387
by
TrevorMonty
on 16 Oct, 2015 14:51
-
NASA does have a need for these small LVs. This award is one way to help these companies by giving them some creditability. The new small LV pad at LC39C has also given these companies another pad at a very low cost.
-
#388
by
Klebiano
on 16 Oct, 2015 14:57
-
The batteries weight already cover the weight of the gas generator and the fuel that it consume?
-
#389
by
savuporo
on 16 Oct, 2015 16:55
-
So, remembering SpX's Falcon 1 drama, is it now SOP to award multi-million dollar fixed-price contacts to companies who haven't even flown a test article yet??
think this is the plan its called "commercial"
Listen to the press conference, NASA wont be the first customer by far at least for Electron. Again, as Beck said, they have their initial manifest pretty well filled with other, commercial customers.
-
#390
by
Prober
on 03 Nov, 2015 12:46
-
-
#391
by
TrevorMonty
on 03 Nov, 2015 21:56
-
-
#392
by
ChrisWilson68
on 04 Nov, 2015 00:01
-
-
#393
by
elvis
on 16 Nov, 2015 20:43
-
-
#394
by
TrevorMonty
on 22 Nov, 2015 01:52
-
-
#395
by
Prober
on 22 Nov, 2015 15:20
-
Rocket lab first choice of launch location has been put on back burner. I think Rocket lab underestimated the non technical issues with building and launching a LV. Getting permission to build a launch pad that meets their requirements.
http://i.stuff.co.nz/business/73935090/kaitorete-spit-on-the-back-burner-for-rocket-lab-launch
been waiting to hear on this project.
"Mahia would be used in 2016 for Rocket Lab's
test fire programme, which would lead to commercial flights in 2017."
Kinda confusing article does test fire mean test launch?
nice HW pic, can't get enough
-
#396
by
CameronD
on 22 Nov, 2015 22:35
-
Rocket lab first choice of launch location has been put on back burner. I think Rocket lab underestimated the non technical issues with building and launching a LV. Getting permission to build a launch pad that meets their requirements.
http://i.stuff.co.nz/business/73935090/kaitorete-spit-on-the-back-burner-for-rocket-lab-launch
been waiting to hear on this project.
"Mahia would be used in 2016 for Rocket Lab's test fire programme, which would lead to commercial flights in 2017."
Kinda confusing article does test fire mean test launch?
Probably both.. Their head office (and production facility) is in Auckland, meaning the Mahia Peninsula is physically closer than the Kaitorete Spit down south - but given the roads involved, presumably only by boat!
According to the article, the biggest issues around the Canterbury area are cultural and, presumably, also earthquake-related and thus tied up in red tape.
IMHO, this might slow them down a little..
-
#397
by
TrevorMonty
on 22 Nov, 2015 23:19
-
It shouldn't slow them down to much as launch rate is more likely restricted by production rate. Once pad is operational they should be able to catch up their backlog in a few months.
The big issue is building unproven LVs. They may have to rework built LVs if there are issues with first launch or two.
Road transport should be straight forward. All up length is 16M so 1st stage should be around 12m or less.
-
#398
by
QuantumG
on 23 Nov, 2015 00:31
-
It shouldn't slow them down to much as launch rate is more likely restricted by production rate. Once pad is operational they should be able to catch up their backlog in a few months.
They want to do a launch a week.
-
#399
by
TrevorMonty
on 29 Nov, 2015 21:12
-
