-
#520 by CameronD on 13 Jul, 2016 02:01
-
Dava Newman visits RocketLab:
https://twitter.com/usembassynz/status/752329216058732544
Well.. it safe to say she got to see a lot more than I did!
-
#521 by NaN on 15 Jul, 2016 03:56
-
Agreed, although they probably don't have a customer like DARPA did to SpaceX at that time. Perhaps the NASA one will be the first "operational" flight?
No idea.. but I wouldn't think so. Losing some poor school's Cube-sat is one thing, but if their maiden VCLS launch failed or (maybe worse?) the payload wound up in the wrong orbit, it'd be all over the newsfeeds on both sides of the Pacific. They'd probly never win a launch for NASA again out of sheer embarrassment.
VCLS would make a fine first operational flight, as its entire purpose is to help new providers get off the ground. Losing it would be bad, of course, but hardly a fatal blow. As the SpaceNews article says:
http://spacenews.com/nasa-awards-contracts-for-dedicated-cubesat-launches/Quote from: SpaceNewsAll three companies are still developing their small satellite launch vehicles, with first launches planned no sooner than early 2016. NASA officials acknowledged at the press conference that this approach carries some risk, since there is no guarantee that the vehicles will be ready as scheduled, or at all. “We’re definitely going after a high-risk approach here,” acknowledged Mark Wiese, the flight projects office chief for NASA’s Launch Services Program.
“The cubesats represent that high risk tolerant payload, which are perfect for the demonstration of a first flight.”
All of the pre-launch customers have some higher tolerance of risk for these contracts or they would not have signed with an unproven provider.
edit: fix quotes -
#522 by TrevorMonty on 15 Jul, 2016 14:17
-
The historical failure rate for new LVs is very high in first few flights. It not so much if the Electron will have a failure but when. Given a failure is expect, best it is one of early test flights.
-
#523 by LtWigglesworth on 25 Jul, 2016 08:41
-
#524 by CameronD on 04 Aug, 2016 05:18
-
Here's an interesting tidbit from the Flightglobal reporting of Moon Express's approval for an attempted moon landing:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-clears-first-private-company-to-make-moon-landing-428182/QuoteMoon Express has signed contracts with Rocket Lab to supply both the Electron rockets to perform the launch and the MX-1E micro-lander to descend onto Mars.
Did I read that right? Rocketlab are building mars landing vehicles also?!?
-
#525 by sdsds on 04 Aug, 2016 06:10
-
Did I read that right? Rocketlab are building mars landing vehicles also?!?
Whatever Flightglobal says, MX-1E is approved by the FAA for landing on the Moon, not on Mars.
http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/organizations/moon-express/moon-express-gains-regulatory-approval-moon-shot/ -
#526 by TrevorMonty on 04 Aug, 2016 06:14
-
It will be a mistake by journalist. Electron MX-1E combination is marginal for lunar lander let alone mars.
-
#527 by ringsider on 06 Aug, 2016 11:38
-
What worries me about all this publicity is that RL have all these customers signed up but have yet to demonstrate even a single test flight of the rocket: could they end up a satellite-payload version of XCOR?
What if the first flight is a failure? The second? Third?? There are a zillion things that could go wrong. Do their customers all then run off to other providers with demonstrated runs on the board?? I do remember it took SpaceX three goes to get single successful launch and, although I hope they do, I'm not convinced people will put the same (or more) faith in the guys at Rocketlab.
If you look at what happened to Super Strypi and Falcon 1, a first failure with payload, while expected, leads to a dummy payload until the vehicle proves itself. Rocket Lab are the best of the bunch IMHO, and far ahead, but progress always slows down when you get to the actual launches.
Firstly, getting the first one off the ground ALWAYS takes longer. Right now I think they will be lucky to get even a sub-orb away before early 2017, based on progress of the launch site and susbsystems. We are in August already and they are showing fairing sep tests and launch site in a semi-finished state - while still saying "end of the year". It slips and slips, but this is normal.
Secondly there is almost certainly going to be a failure during early launches for one reason or another. That will lead to literally months if not years of delays while they analyze what went wrong and re-engineer and test the problem. This is what kills cashflow, as customers and investor dry up at this point, so making sure you have a full bank account prior to launch 1 is crucial. This consideration also is a factor in management decision to go/no go - it is a calculated risk based on readiness and cash.
They clearly want to launch in the antipodean Summer time - circa Dec-March, 3-4-5 months from now - but honestly I doubt they will make that, because all the usual human stuff like school summer holidays in December/Jan in Aus/NZ and just because they are not close enough to ready I think.
And that then pushes them out into New Zealand autumn and winter; the issue then is weather, as Mahia gets 70+ days a year with wind gusts above 63 kph, which is a Force 8 gale, most of them in autumn, spring and winter ie., March-November (https://www.niwa.co.nz/static/Hawkes%20Bay%20WEB.pdf pp15-17).
Even if you say your rocket handles significant loads, I think we can all agree that F8 gales - probably plus rain/sleet/snow, as the minimum monthly temps in winter are sub-zero degrees C - are not good launch conditions.
So if you then struggle to find a good launch window, you are hanging almost another year until Southern spring/summer 2017...
Anyway, I think again they are the most advanced and complete of the pack, but it's a long way from looking like a rocket to flying like one. I would put my money on late 2017 launch. -
#528 by ringsider on 06 Aug, 2016 12:07
-
Doesn't matter, this company must obtain a TAA to even discuss rocketry with nationals of New Zealand.
"This company" is a New Zealand company, with a U.S. presence only for funding and contracts, etc., a probably for paperwork like ITAR.
- Ed Kyle
Actually the NZ company is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the US one. You can check this at NZ Companies Office:-
https://www.business.govt.nz/companies/app/ui/pages/companies/1835428?
backurl=%2Fcompanies%2Fapp%2Fui%2Fpages%2Fcompanies%2Fsearch%
3Fmode%3Dstandard%26type%3Dentities%26q%3Drocket%2520lab
This makes the beneficial owner a US-resident corporation, and therefore it is subject to US laws including ITAR, MTCR etc.
And as a result the NZ government has drafted a National Interests Analysis and subsequently a Technology Safeguard Agreement with the US government on technology exchange specifically for Rocket Lab:-
NIA:
https://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-NZ/00DBSCH_ITR_69357_1/a547a574617eef61024ddd01b00c797a1f01229a
TSA:
http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/sectors-industries/space/pdf-library/A%20Regulatory%20Regime%20to%20Enable%20Space%20
Launches%20from%20New%20Zealand%20-December%202015-%20-
%20Cabinet%20paper.pdf
So in practise, this is a US corporation operating on NZ soil through a subsidiary that also has to adhere to US laws, and some special conditions about access to launch vehicles for non-US citizens.
There is so much info on Rocket Lab out there in government filings and ministerial statements, I am amazed people don't find it. Even shareholder percentages are on the internet if you look carefully enough. -
#529 by gongora on 06 Aug, 2016 22:23
-
Tweet from Jeff FoustQuote
Robin Sampson, Clyde Space: first Outernet cubesats to launch in December. Will broadcast in UHF with UK spectrum allocation. #smallsat
Tweet from Jeff FoustQuoteSampson: those initial Outernet cubesats will launch on the 2nd and 3rd Rocket Lab Electron missions late this year. #smallsat
-
#530 by TrevorMonty on 07 Aug, 2016 14:45
-
Most of those wind gusts will be for mid afternoon and later. Typically it is calmer in morning with wind building during day.What worries me about all this publicity is that RL have all these customers signed up but have yet to demonstrate even a single test flight of the rocket: could they end up a satellite-payload version of XCOR?
What if the first flight is a failure? The second? Third?? There are a zillion things that could go wrong. Do their customers all then run off to other providers with demonstrated runs on the board?? I do remember it took SpaceX three goes to get single successful launch and, although I hope they do, I'm not convinced people will put the same (or more) faith in the guys at Rocketlab.
If you look at what happened to Super Strypi and Falcon 1, a first failure with payload, while expected, leads to a dummy payload until the vehicle proves itself. Rocket Lab are the best of the bunch IMHO, and far ahead, but progress always slows down when you get to the actual launches.
Firstly, getting the first one off the ground ALWAYS takes longer. Right now I think they will be lucky to get even a sub-orb away before early 2017, based on progress of the launch site and susbsystems. We are in August already and they are showing fairing sep tests and launch site in a semi-finished state - while still saying "end of the year". It slips and slips, but this is normal.
Secondly there is almost certainly going to be a failure during early launches for one reason or another. That will lead to literally months if not years of delays while they analyze what went wrong and re-engineer and test the problem. This is what kills cashflow, as customers and investor dry up at this point, so making sure you have a full bank account prior to launch 1 is crucial. This consideration also is a factor in management decision to go/no go - it is a calculated risk based on readiness and cash.
They clearly want to launch in the antipodean Summer time - circa Dec-March, 3-4-5 months from now - but honestly I doubt they will make that, because all the usual human stuff like school summer holidays in December/Jan in Aus/NZ and just because they are not close enough to ready I think.
And that then pushes them out into New Zealand autumn and winter; the issue then is weather, as Mahia gets 70+ days a year with wind gusts above 63 kph, which is a Force 8 gale, most of them in autumn, spring and winter ie., March-November (https://www.niwa.co.nz/static/Hawkes%20Bay%20WEB.pdf pp15-17).
Even if you say your rocket handles significant loads, I think we can all agree that F8 gales - probably plus rain/sleet/snow, as the minimum monthly temps in winter are sub-zero degrees C - are not good launch conditions.
So if you then struggle to find a good launch window, you are hanging almost another year until Southern spring/summer 2017...
Anyway, I think again they are the most advanced and complete of the pack, but it's a long way from looking like a rocket to flying like one. I would put my money on late 2017 launch.
The launch site would be lucky to see snow once a decade and even then it wouldn't settle.
Not sure about Mahia but Napier side of Hawkes Bay has lot of calm clear days in winter. -
#531 by ringsider on 07 Aug, 2016 15:29
-
#532 by Steven Pietrobon on 08 Aug, 2016 06:15
-
That is the ELaNa launch date, not the launch date of the first Electron.
-
#533 by CameronD on 08 Aug, 2016 06:37
-
That is the ELaNa launch date, not the launch date of the first Electron.
Perhaps his point was that the proposed launch was in winter?
-
#534 by ringsider on 08 Aug, 2016 11:12
-
Perhaps his point was that the proposed launch was in winter?
Yes it was this, although I personally think they will be lucky to get orbital before then in any case. And I say that without any ill-will whatsoever - it's just the way things go during this phase of operations, millions of tiny details. As far as I can see they don't yet have even an experimental launch licence, for example.
w.r.t weather, I remember Peter Beck saying they had specified Electron to withstand the local wind/weather loads on the pad, but I think wintery conditions makes it more marginal and slightly harder to plan a launch campaign in the usual manner. Another comment above pointed out that the weather changes over the day and very windy days are mixed with clear days - I accept this of course. The thing is that planning around the variable weather of the winter becomes more complex, and almost certainly creates delays in individual launch campaigns that then roll through the entire cadence. -
#535 by LtWigglesworth on 20 Aug, 2016 02:54
-
Launch Platform has been installed at Mahia.
https://twitter.com/RocketLabUSA/status/766735820224995328 -
#536 by baldusi on 20 Aug, 2016 19:53
-
Which winter? They are launching from the Southern Hemisphere.
-
#537 by CameronD on 21 Aug, 2016 23:20
-
Which winter? They are launching from the Southern Hemisphere.
Southern winter. Next June.
AFAICT, they are still on track for a test launch of something late this year. What that "something" will be though is anyone's guess.. -
#538 by russianhalo117 on 23 Aug, 2016 22:15
-
In addition to discussions with MARS and Space Florida, the following quote from Alaska Aerospace Corporation CEO:Quote
Craig Campbell, AAC President and CEO, stated "With completion of this project, PSCA is ready to welcome new launches supporting both government and private sector companies." Over the past few months, AAC has signed a multi-year contract with the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) for multiple launches from the PSCA through 2021. AAC is also working with two private companies, Rocket Lab USA and Vector Space Systems, for commercial launches from PSCA as early as 2017.
LINK: http://akaerospace.com/news/pacific-spaceport-complex-alaska-rededication-and-return-launch-event -
#539 by TrevorMonty on 24 Aug, 2016 00:42
-
Rocket lab will need Alaska pad for DOD missions as I doubt DOD would be allow their payloads launched from NZ.
