-
#580
by
ChrisWilson68
on 18 Sep, 2016 00:51
-
The purpose of this Agreement is to preclude unauthorized access to or transfer of technologies associated with the launching from New Zealand of:
a. U.S. Launch Vehicles;
b. U.S. Spacecraft by means of U.S. Launch Vehicles;
c. Foreign Spacecraft by means of U.S. Launch Vehicles; and
d. N.Z. Spacecraft by means of U.S. Launch Vehicles. [/i]
It isn't a U.S. launch vehicle. It is designed in New Zealand, developed in New Zealand, tested in New Zealand, built in New Zealand, and will be launched in New Zealand by New Zealand citizens. I've never read about the "big chunks" of U.S. hardware that you mentioned. The company's U.S. presence (an office in an office park) is, in my view, only due to the source of some venture capital.
Perhaps all of those U.S. regulations apply, but I can't for the life of me see why. It would be like the FAA regulating all Proton launches in Kazakhstan because International Launch Services (a Russian-owned company) has an office in Virginia.
Rocket Labs doesn't just "have an office" in the U.S. -- it's officially a U.S. company. Their launch vehicle uses U.S. technology that is covered by ITAR. ringsider even gave a specific example of some of that sensitive U.S. technology: "LOX-tolerant CFRP which comes from TenCate, a US corporation".
Russia has an extensive aerospace industry, so it could build Proton without any U.S. technology. New Zealand does not have that.
-
#581
by
HMXHMX
on 18 Sep, 2016 01:18
-
this is interesting, maybe Jim -others can chime in on this...
Can be encapsulated by the customer, is this new?
Not new. Under the DARPA FALCON program AirLaunch LLC developed an "ECE" or Encapsulated Cargo Element that would have been used in the exact same manner.
-
#582
by
Davidthefat
on 18 Sep, 2016 02:22
-
The purpose of this Agreement is to preclude unauthorized access to or transfer of technologies associated with the launching from New Zealand of:
a. U.S. Launch Vehicles;
b. U.S. Spacecraft by means of U.S. Launch Vehicles;
c. Foreign Spacecraft by means of U.S. Launch Vehicles; and
d. N.Z. Spacecraft by means of U.S. Launch Vehicles. [/i]
It isn't a U.S. launch vehicle. It is designed in New Zealand, developed in New Zealand, tested in New Zealand, built in New Zealand, and will be launched in New Zealand by New Zealand citizens. I've never read about the "big chunks" of U.S. hardware that you mentioned. The company's U.S. presence (an office in an office park) is, in my view, only due to the source of some venture capital.
Perhaps all of those U.S. regulations apply, but I can't for the life of me see why. It would be like the FAA regulating all Proton launches in Kazakhstan because International Launch Services (a Russian-owned company) has an office in Virginia.
Rocket Labs doesn't just "have an office" in the U.S. -- it's officially a U.S. company. Their launch vehicle uses U.S. technology that is covered by ITAR. ringsider even gave a specific example of some of that sensitive U.S. technology: "LOX-tolerant CFRP which comes from TenCate, a US corporation".
Russia has an extensive aerospace industry, so it could build Proton without any U.S. technology. New Zealand does not have that.
Says right here on their career page:
https://rocketlabusa.com/engineer/"The company is expanding globally and is currently growing the team based at Rocket Lab’s Los Angeles headquarters."
Looks like from other postings on their site, most of the engineering is done in New Zealand. Looks like designing, testing and manufacturing is done in New Zealand based on the position types available.
Seems like their plan is to have concurrent operations in the US and New Zealand, but the US site is solely for producing launch vehicles intended to launch from the US. They are hiring engineers to develop the factory state side, from the description.
-
#583
by
edkyle99
on 18 Sep, 2016 02:57
-
-
#584
by
Davidthefat
on 18 Sep, 2016 03:01
-
-
#585
by
ChrisWilson68
on 18 Sep, 2016 03:34
-
Rocket Labs doesn't just "have an office" in the U.S. -- it's officially a U.S. company.
"Officially" is just semantics in this case, as far as I'm concerned.
Ed, this whole back-and-forth started because you expressed disbelief that the FAA would have jurisdiction over RocketLabs. Well, as far as jurisdiction is concerned, it matters that they are legally a U.S. company.
They chose to be a U.S. company. Why? Probably for three big reasons: (1) they get to use ITAR-controlled technology; (2) they get access to the US government market; and (3) they get easier access to US venture capital. In return, they have to accept FAA oversight.
There's really nothing more to it. Whether they do their own engineering in New Zealand or anywhere else is beside the point. The point is that they chose to be a U.S. company and that is why the FAA has jurisdiction.
-
#586
by
ringsider
on 18 Sep, 2016 06:29
-
It isn't a U.S. launch vehicle. It is designed in New Zealand, developed in New Zealand, tested in New Zealand, built in New Zealand, and will be launched in New Zealand by New Zealand citizens. ... The company's U.S. presence (an office in an office park) is, in my view, only due to the source of some venture capital.
From rocketlabusa.com website:
Rocket Lab is a US corporation with a New Zealand subsidiary, and has complete vertical integration over the launch process, from rocket manufacturing through to our its own commercial launch range.From the slide deck I posted, and that you obviously didn't have time to read:
There were even questions in the NZ parliament when they made the switch, as Rocket Lab took about $20M NZD in public subsidy / Callaghan Innovation grants prior to that change in domicile. Its all public record if you want to look:
I've never read about the "big chunks" of U.S. hardware that you mentioned.
You need to read more. The "big chunks" are propulsion, avionics, GNC and electronics. This is from another slide deck that is out there in the wild:-
The current status is simple: they are a US corporation*, flying a US launcher under US authority and control. It needs to be under the oversight and control of US citizens, unless the NZ staff have special authorization. You can disbelieve that all you like, but that is the fact of the matter. That's why they now have a US flag on the launcher:-
*I believe they are now majority US-owned as they won a small $100k SBIR grant for an AFTS development, and SBIR is for companies with 50%+ US ownership; Peter Beck had 60% just after the Khosla transaction but I imagine that dropped below 50% when Lockheed Martin and Bessemer joined the party.
-
#587
by
savuporo
on 18 Sep, 2016 07:18
-
I'm not disputing their legal/licensing status, but that one slide with the statement about how much manufacturing is happening in US doesn't seem right according to other publicly available sources. They simply do not seem have enough people in US to do all of that, or they hid these people well somehow.
-
#588
by
Hobbes-22
on 18 Sep, 2016 08:21
-
Rocket Labs doesn't just "have an office" in the U.S. -- it's officially a U.S. company. Their launch vehicle uses U.S. technology that is covered by ITAR. ringsider even gave a specific example of some of that sensitive U.S. technology: "LOX-tolerant CFRP which comes from TenCate, a US corporation".
Ironically, Ten Cate is a Dutch company that has a US subsidiary to make selling stuff to the US military easier. So we have two companies subjecting themselves to US regulations when they could have done nonencumbered business outside US jursidiction instead.
-
#589
by
ringsider
on 18 Sep, 2016 08:38
-
I'm not disputing their legal/licensing status, but that one slide with the statement about how much manufacturing is happening in US doesn't seem right according to other publicly available sources. They simply do not seem have enough people in US to do all of that, or they hid these people well somehow.
In that regard I tend to agree with you. That slide is from July, and it looks to me that it is a freshly rented facility. But the issue that will drive work to that location will be export of critical parts like GNC gyros to NZ.
They are now hiring people for that location e.g.:
https://rocketlabusa.com/payloads-structure-and-mechanisms-engineer/Work will be based in our Los Angeles facility with support from our subsidiary office in Auckland, New Zealand.And the hiring rules are different for LA-based roles compared to NZ based roles:
LA:
To conform to US Government space technology export regulations, applicants must be a US citizen, lawful permanent resident of the US, protected individual as defined by 8 USC 1324b(a)(3), or eligible to obtain the required authorization from the US Department of State. NZ:
For security reasons background checks will be undertaken prior to any employment offers being made to an applicant. These checks will include nationality checks as it is a requirement of this position that you be eligible to access equipment and data regulated by the United States International Traffic in Arms Regulations. Under these Regulations, you may be ineligible for this role if you do not hold citizenship of Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Switzerland, the European Union or a country that is part of NATO, or if you hold ineligible dual citizenship or nationality.
-
#590
by
edkyle99
on 18 Sep, 2016 16:18
-
I've never read about the "big chunks" of U.S. hardware that you mentioned.
You need to read more. The "big chunks" are propulsion, avionics, GNC and electronics.
Rutherford was developed in New Zealand. What other propulsion is there?
- Ed Kyle
-
#591
by
Prober
on 18 Sep, 2016 17:28
-
this is interesting, maybe Jim -others can chime in on this...
Can be encapsulated by the customer, is this new?
Not new. Under the DARPA FALCON program AirLaunch LLC developed an "ECE" or Encapsulated Cargo Element that would have been used in the exact same manner.
Thx for the info
Looks like a great opportunity to keep costs inline for tight projects, and open many new doors.
-
#592
by
TrevorMonty
on 18 Sep, 2016 17:50
-
I've never read about the "big chunks" of U.S. hardware that you mentioned.
You need to read more. The "big chunks" are propulsion, avionics, GNC and electronics.
Rutherford was developed in New Zealand. What other propulsion is there?
- Ed Kyle
The Avionics, fuel tanks, launch pad structures, electric turbopumps were all designed and built in NZ. They buy in components like electric motors, batteries, electric components, carbon fibres etc just like every other vehicle (car, plane boat LV) manufacturer.
Most importantly software would have been developed locally, this one of more important and expensive parts of LV development these days.
-
#593
by
Robotbeat
on 18 Sep, 2016 19:56
-
Electron? Why not name it something more interesting like Thorondor, lord of the Eagles in Middle Earth during the First Age?
-
#594
by
Skyrocket
on 18 Sep, 2016 20:23
-
Electron? Why not name it something more interesting like Thorondor, lord of the Eagles in Middle Earth during the First Age?
Likely because the name is very fitting due to the electric powered pumps of the Rutherford engines. And because "Thorondor" is still copyrighted by Middle-earth Enterprises (formerly known as Tolkien Enterprises)
-
#595
by
ringsider
on 18 Sep, 2016 22:40
-
Rutherford was developed in New Zealand.
So?
What other propulsion is there?
There are some images on the Internet that show a 40kN turbopump-driven engine for E+, but you'd probably prefer to do the research yourself.
-
#596
by
PhotoEngineer
on 19 Sep, 2016 15:47
-
Likely because the name is very fitting due to the electric powered pumps of the Rutherford engines. And because "Thorondor" is still copyrighted by Middle-earth Enterprises (formerly known as Tolkien Enterprises)
[/quote]
That would be a pretty cool name though. Or Nazgul depending on your business intentions.
-
#597
by
edkyle99
on 19 Sep, 2016 15:56
-
Rutherford was developed in New Zealand.
So?
The claim I to which I was responding was that "big chunks" of Electron's propulsion was developed in the United States, which obviously is not true when Rutherford, the primary engine for the rocket, was developed and test fired in New Zealand, etc.
- Ed Kyle
-
#598
by
ringsider
on 19 Sep, 2016 18:21
-
The claim I to which I was responding was that "big chunks" of Electron's propulsion was developed in the United States.
That is not what was said.
-
#599
by
edkyle99
on 19 Sep, 2016 21:43
-
The claim I to which I was responding was that "big chunks" of Electron's propulsion was developed in the United States.
That is not what was said.
That is how I read it during this exchange:
Quote from: edkyle99 on 09/17/2016 05:53 PM
I've never read about the "big chunks" of U.S. hardware that you mentioned.
You need to read more. The "big chunks" are propulsion, avionics, GNC and electronics. This is from another slide deck that is out there in the wild:-
- Ed Kyle