-
#600
by
Darkseraph
on 19 Sep, 2016 22:11
-
Electron? Why not name it something more interesting like Thorondor, lord of the Eagles in Middle Earth during the First Age?
Electrons are much smaller than Protons. One of the biggest vehicles on the market is the failure prone Russian Proton Launcher. It is fitting a relatively tiny launcher that uses batteries to power its pumps should be called Electron.
Although, I would totally dig it if they named it Uruk-hai with a rough white hand insignia elmblazoned on the side!
-
#601
by
Zed_Noir
on 20 Sep, 2016 01:21
-
Electron? Why not name it something more interesting like Thorondor, lord of the Eagles in Middle Earth during the First Age?
Electrons are much smaller than Protons. One of the biggest vehicles on the market is the failure prone Russian Proton Launcher. It is fitting a relatively tiny launcher that uses batteries to power its pumps should be called Electron.
Although, I would totally dig it if they named it Uruk-hai Orthanc with a rough white hand insignia elmblazoned on the side!
Fix that for you.
The Electron is a black cylinder after all.
-
#602
by
Davidthefat
on 20 Sep, 2016 03:34
-
Since KSC's pad 39C is being shared with Firefly, is there any news on how the mobile launcher is going on either side (Firefly or Rocket Lab)? Rocket Lab is planning an early 2017 launch for the Venture class contract; is there appropriate infrastructure available to go ahead with the launch? From what I can find, the pad only supports methane and not RP-1.
-
#603
by
CameronD
on 20 Sep, 2016 04:08
-
All that is public knowledge at this point is:
1. Rocketlab are building a launch pad at Mahia in New Zealand.
2. Current manufacturing facilities are located in Airpark Drive, Auckland.
3. They plan test flights from Mahia starting no earlier than December this year.
4. Mission Control for these (and maybe other) flights is located across the road from the manufacturing center.
5. Peter Beck has grand plans.
So, if and when they do anything at Pad 39C is anyone's guess, but one thing is for certain: they have to launch a rocket or two from the North Island of New Zealand first...
https://rocketlabusa.com/rocket-lab-launch-site-nears-completion-ahead-of-test-launches/
-
#604
by
S.Paulissen
on 20 Sep, 2016 16:21
-
Electron? Why not name it something more interesting like Thorondor, lord of the Eagles in Middle Earth during the First Age?
Electrons are much smaller than Protons. One of the biggest vehicles on the market is the failure prone Russian Proton Launcher. It is fitting a relatively tiny launcher that uses batteries to power its pumps should be called Electron.
Although, I would totally dig it if they named it Uruk-hai Orthanc with a rough white hand insignia elmblazoned on the side!
Fix that for you.
The Electron is a black cylinder after all.
Rocket Launch or Barad Dur? You decide.
-
#605
by
Zed_Noir
on 20 Sep, 2016 17:17
-
Electron? Why not name it something more interesting like Thorondor, lord of the Eagles in Middle Earth during the First Age?
Electrons are much smaller than Protons. One of the biggest vehicles on the market is the failure prone Russian Proton Launcher. It is fitting a relatively tiny launcher that uses batteries to power its pumps should be called Electron.
Although, I would totally dig it if they named it Uruk-hai Orthanc with a rough white hand insignia elmblazoned on the side!
Fix that for you.
The Electron is a black cylinder after all.
Rocket Launch or Barad Dur? You decide.
That will require the change of the livery from a rough white hand to an unblinking red eye.
-
#606
by
ringsider
on 20 Sep, 2016 20:53
-
The claim I to which I was responding was that "big chunks" of Electron's propulsion was developed in the United States.
Again, that is not what was said.
Firstly, I said "made". You said "developed". Those are not equivalent words.
Secondly, the company itself, who I quoted and who probably know more about what they are doing internally that you or I, says propulsion is "manufactured" in the USA. "Made" and "manufactured" are equivalent words.
Feel free to research those things yourself.
-
#607
by
Zed_Noir
on 21 Sep, 2016 01:07
-
-
#608
by
edkyle99
on 21 Sep, 2016 02:36
-
The claim I to which I was responding was that "big chunks" of Electron's propulsion was developed in the United States.
Again, that is not what was said.
Firstly, I said "made". You said "developed". Those are not equivalent words.
The answer is the same for both words.
Secondly, the company itself, who I quoted and who probably know more about what they are doing internally that you or I, says propulsion is "manufactured" in the USA. "Made" and "manufactured" are equivalent words.
Feel free to research those things yourself.
I have. Please show me a photo of Rocket Lab actually manufacturing something, anything, in the United States. We have seen photos and videos of engines and other hardware built and tested in New Zealand.
- Ed Kyle
-
#609
by
Lars-J
on 21 Sep, 2016 16:26
-
The claim I to which I was responding was that "big chunks" of Electron's propulsion was developed in the United States.
Again, that is not what was said.
Firstly, I said "made". You said "developed". Those are not equivalent words.
The answer is the same for both words.
Secondly, the company itself, who I quoted and who probably know more about what they are doing internally that you or I, says propulsion is "manufactured" in the USA. "Made" and "manufactured" are equivalent words.
Feel free to research those things yourself.
I have. Please show me a photo of Rocket Lab actually manufacturing something, anything, in the United States. We have seen photos and videos of engines and other hardware built and tested in New Zealand.
- Ed Kyle
IT. DOESN'T. MATTER. They have chosen to make themselves a U.S. based company, so your original disbelief that they were under the jurisdiction of the FAA has been corrected. Why keep moving the goalposts?
-
#610
by
edkyle99
on 23 Sep, 2016 14:44
-
IT. DOESN'T. MATTER. They have chosen to make themselves a U.S. based company, so your original disbelief that they were under the jurisdiction of the FAA has been corrected. Why keep moving the goalposts?
I understand the FAA thing. It is bureaucracy doing that thing that it does.
What matters, to me, is correctly categorizing this launch vehicle. New Zealanders should, and certainly will, celebrate it as a historic New Zealand achievement. I'm hoping that Electron will not insult them by only sporting a giant American flag as shown in the drawings. I'm also hoping that reporters won't be fooled by the corporate publicity effort and call this an "American" launch vehicle in their stories.
- Ed Kyle
-
#611
by
ringsider
on 23 Sep, 2016 16:06
-
IT. DOESN'T. MATTER. They have chosen to make themselves a U.S. based company, so your original disbelief that they were under the jurisdiction of the FAA has been corrected. Why keep moving the goalposts?
I understand the FAA thing. It is bureaucracy doing that thing that it does.
What matters, to me, is correctly categorizing this launch vehicle. New Zealanders should, and certainly will, celebrate it as a historic New Zealand achievement. I'm hoping that Electron will not insult them by only sporting a giant American flag as shown in the drawings. I'm also hoping that reporters won't be fooled by the corporate publicity effort and call this an "American" launch vehicle in their stories.
- Ed Kyle
If you have some proof that this is
not an American company, with US headquarters, majority owned by US corporations or US nationals, launching a US vehicle, containing ITAR-controlled US technology, from a US-controlled range under US FAA regulation, requiring a US launch licence, and staffed exclusively by US citizens or foreign nationals approved at the sole discretion of the US government, please go ahead and post it.
If not, please stop being silly.
-
#612
by
savuporo
on 23 Sep, 2016 16:17
-
Most of their people are in Auckland. They call NZ operations a 'subsidiary' in official docs for a while now. In NZ press, they are a NZ company though.
http://imgur.com/xtNPnvJ
-
#613
by
edkyle99
on 23 Sep, 2016 17:39
-
You guys are missing my point. It isn't about where the HQ is located. It is about the rocket itself.
- Ed Kyle
-
#614
by
savuporo
on 23 Sep, 2016 17:57
-
You guys are missing my point. It isn't about where the HQ is located. It is about the rocket itself.
- Ed Kyle
The rocket itself and people that build it - and will operate it - are all in NZ, no question.
-
#615
by
ringsider
on 23 Sep, 2016 18:51
-
The rocket itself and people that build it - and will operate it - are all in NZ, no question.
I think that was once true, but isn't any longer (posting more than 60 days old now):-
-
#616
by
ncb1397
on 23 Sep, 2016 22:35
-
It is a New Zealand rocket that is trying to look American so it can compete for NASA business.
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://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-awards-venture-class-launch-services-contracts-for-cubesat-satellitesWow, look at that, U.S. tax dollars going to support american companies to be more competitive on the global marketplace. They even have USA in the name. How patriotic.
-
#617
by
ringsider
on 23 Sep, 2016 23:16
-
It is a New Zealand rocket that is trying to look American so it can compete for NASA business.
Actually they are now majority US-owned. The NZ shareholders are a minority.
What has actually happened is that all the NZ tax dollars that went into Rocket Lab will now be milked, in large part, for the benefit of US shareholders and US taxpayers. For example, the Callaghan Innovation Grant they got which I believe was $10m over two years (
http://www.callaghaninnovation.govt.nz/annual-report-2016/rocket-lab) came just before they became formally American.
Now that their technology is ripe for plucking, it will be delivering around NZ$400-NZ$1B in economic benefits (this is an official number from an official NZ govt. economic impact report on Rocket Lab you can find on the web if you look), a lot of which will flow to the majority shareholders in the US, including Lockheed Martin, Bessemer, and Khosla Ventures. The shareholdings are also on the web for free if you know how to look - in fact Peter Beck has complained to the source of the info about it being there.
You can also confirm they have a majority US holding as they got this SBIR award:-
https://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/872331And as I am sure you know the criteria for SBIR qualification are as follows:
The majority (more than 50%) of your firms' equity (e.g. stock) is directly owned and controlled by one of the following:-
- One or more individuals who are citizens or permanent resident alien of the U.S.
- Other for-profit small business concerns (each of which is directly owned and controlled individuals who are citizens or permanent resident alien of the U.S.)
- A combination of (1) and (2).
- Multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, private equity firms, or any combination of these, so long as no one such firm owns or controls more than 50% of the equity.
-
#618
by
ringsider
on 24 Sep, 2016 06:38
-
http://imgur.com/xtNPnvJ
That image is great.
First it lists two different founding dates, 2007 and 2008, when it was actually founded in 2006:-
Company number: 1835428
NZ Business Number: 9429034019108
Incorporation Date: 29 Jun 2006
Company Status: Registered
Entity type: NZ Limited Company
Hence the celebration of 10 years just recently.
Then it says Rocket Lab is headquartered in Los Angeles in the text, only to go on to state the HQ is in New Zealand in the footer data.
Is that from LinkedIn?
-
#619
by
RonM
on 24 Sep, 2016 13:35
-
This discussion about whether Rocketlab is a New Zealand or US company doesn't recognize how multinational corporations work.
Sometimes for tax or regulation reasons it is beneficial for a corporation to create a totally new corporation in another country. These two corporate entities are legally separate, they just happen to be owned by the same people. With the same people running both corporations, obviously they will cooperate with each other. However, they may open themselves up to regulation by government agencies such as the FAA.
In this case ITAR may have had something to do with it.
It's complicated corporate law in two different countries and really is off topic.
What's important here from a NSF point of view is that Rocketlab is building a new rocket.
