-
#660
by
high road
on 28 Oct, 2016 13:42
-
No, I'm not taking anyone's word. Neither Musk's nor Beck's. No emotional reactions on my part ;-) just cheering for the promising future of space flight. Preferably with many succesful companies. I'll cheer to all their successes, take their timetables and claims with appropriate amounts of salt, and cringe at all of the 'my man beats your man any day of the week' cheers.
Just pointing out that RL is going for a specific niche. Will it be big enough? Who knows. Their investors seem to think so. We'll see how they do. Same for everyone.
As for the existing competition of dedicated rideshares that can launch in a week, where are they? I see no reason to believe that current launchers can do that within a few years. They all have plenty of backlog. Who will be first to the punch? According to what I've seen the last few years, we'll have to wait another five or so at the least.
-
#661
by
savuporo
on 28 Oct, 2016 16:25
-
The rideshare model doesn't envision requiring booking years in advance. The idea is to have regular launches and let people catch the next launch, like catching a bus.
The risk equation for primary payloads and insurers would have to completely change. For a long time, nobody will put a Galaxy Note 7 based cubesat from the next earth observation startup next to hundreds of millions of dollars in assets of a publicly traded comm-sat operator on a whim.
-
#662
by
TrevorMonty
on 28 Oct, 2016 16:32
-
Most of LEO constellations need SSO orbits while most large LVs are GTO missions. In these cases ride share will not work out. A large dedicated ride share will put multiple satellites in same SSO orbit. Constellations require their satellites spread over multiple SSO orbits.
Being primary payload means the satellite ends up in ideal orbit using very little of its DV to get there. If satellite needs to reposition its self after drop off from rideshare that requires DV which increases build cost of satellite or reduces its mission life.
Ride shares have there uses especially for experimental technology demostration satellites that don't care about their orbit.
-
#663
by
ChrisWilson68
on 28 Oct, 2016 17:28
-
The rideshare model doesn't envision requiring booking years in advance. The idea is to have regular launches and let people catch the next launch, like catching a bus.
The risk equation for primary payloads and insurers would have to completely change. For a long time, nobody will put a Galaxy Note 7 based cubesat from the next earth observation startup next to hundreds of millions of dollars in assets of a publicly traded comm-sat operator on a whim.
Most of LEO constellations need SSO orbits while most large LVs are GTO missions.
You've both misunderstood what I meant by "rideshare". I don't mean as a secondary payload on a launch of a big satellite. I mean dedicated flights with nothing but small satellites. Spaceflight Services already has such a flight booked on a Falcon 9 with its Sherpa dispenser and plans to fly such flights regularly.
http://www.spaceflight.com/Anyway, secondary payloads on launches of large satellites are also a thing. Not all large satellites are going to GEO, and the idea that the Samsung battery issue will change any of that is just silly. Everyone already knew that batteries can explode. Yes, if you want to ride with a big satellite you can't just put a cell phone in a cubesat on a whim. But at $5 million a pop for an Electron launch, RL is out of the price range of the cell-phone-in-a-cubesat crowd.
-
#664
by
Robotbeat
on 28 Oct, 2016 18:37
-
A single launch can put satellites in multiple planes as long as you have a little time to wait and the satellites have some on-board propulsion.
The market for smallsat launchers isn't bulk launching of constellations (unless you're talking very tiny satellites such that even smallsat launchers can cluster them), it's for unique payloads and for on-demand replacement of satellite in a constellation in between bulk launches.
That's probably not a market big enough for all these smallsat companies to survive without dramatically changing their business model.
I think Masten has the best chance, actually.
-
#665
by
savuporo
on 28 Oct, 2016 19:18
-
You've both misunderstood what I meant by "rideshare". I don't mean as a secondary payload on a launch of a big satellite.
Rideshare is rideshare as used
by the community,
dedicated rideshare is dedicated rideshare.
Spaceflight Services already has such a flight booked on a Falcon 9 with its Sherpa dispenser and plans to fly such flights regularly.
One datapoint is not a trend. To the best of my knowledge, SpaceFlight has not talked about their intended cadence. Note that the first contract was announced more than a year ago.
Anyway, secondary payloads on launches of large satellites are also a thing. Not all large satellites are going to GEO, and the idea that the Samsung battery issue will change any of that is just silly. Everyone already knew that batteries can explode. Yes, if you want to ride with a big satellite you can't just put a cell phone in a cubesat on a whim. But at $5 million a pop for an Electron launch, RL is out of the price range of the cell-phone-in-a-cubesat crowd.
I gave you an example of extreme case of multiple payload integration concerns, there are plenty, and these aren't exclusive to big payload co-manifesting either. A large launch is a large launch representing correspondingly large total financial risk. Nobody can afford shortcuts and much experimentation there.
-
#666
by
ChrisWilson68
on 28 Oct, 2016 20:51
-
You've both misunderstood what I meant by "rideshare". I don't mean as a secondary payload on a launch of a big satellite.
Rideshare is rideshare as used by the community, dedicated rideshare is dedicated rideshare.
We could debate the meanings of words, but what's the point? Whether the misunderstanding was your fault or mine, the fact is that you misunderstood and so your responses didn't address what I was actually talking about.
Spaceflight Services already has such a flight booked on a Falcon 9 with its Sherpa dispenser and plans to fly such flights regularly.
One datapoint is not a trend. To the best of my knowledge, SpaceFlight has not talked about their intended cadence. Note that the first contract was announced more than a year ago.
Obviously, the flight rate will depend on demand.
If there's a lot of demand for launches of small payloads, there will be lots of dedicated flights. If there's not much demand, Electron will fly only infrequently and Rocket Lab won't be able to succeed. Either way, it's bad for Rocket Lab.
Anyway, secondary payloads on launches of large satellites are also a thing. Not all large satellites are going to GEO, and the idea that the Samsung battery issue will change any of that is just silly. Everyone already knew that batteries can explode. Yes, if you want to ride with a big satellite you can't just put a cell phone in a cubesat on a whim. But at $5 million a pop for an Electron launch, RL is out of the price range of the cell-phone-in-a-cubesat crowd.
I gave you an example of extreme case of multiple payload integration concerns, there are plenty, and these aren't exclusive to big payload co-manifesting either. A large launch is a large launch representing correspondingly large total financial risk. Nobody can afford shortcuts and much experimentation there.
You're failing to address my point, which is that Electron isn't an option for shortcuts and experimentation either. It's $5 million per launch!
If you want to experiment with small satellites, it's much cheaper to spend a few thousand dollars on space-rated power systems than use a cheap cell phone battery but pay $5 million for the launch.
Spaceflight Services has signed up lots and lots of customers, both for secondary payloads and for dedicated shared flights, so obviously the requirements for safety on these flights are not overly burdensome -- not worth $5 million to avoid.
-
#667
by
TrevorMonty
on 28 Oct, 2016 21:29
-
A lot of the RL launches are actually ride shares, look their on line booking system.
The will also be private missions with surplus capacity. The customer may allow ride share on these flights, would reduce their launch costs.
-
#668
by
Davidthefat
on 28 Oct, 2016 21:45
-
If you go the ride share route on the Electron, it starts at $70k a cubesat according to the website. And RL is almost fully booked till 2019. Even if Electron doesn't launch as many times per year as predicted, it still has contracts till the foreseeable future.
Look at STP 2, a mission within the DoD rideshare program. They were originally supposed to launch in 2012? 2013? Now it seems mid to late 2017.
-
#669
by
savuporo
on 28 Oct, 2016 21:49
-
Look at STP 2, a mission within the DoD rideshare program. They were originally supposed to launch in 2012? 2013? Now it seems mid to late 2017.
And now think about knock-on effects and opportunity costs of not flying things like DSAC and GPIM 5 years earlier.
-
#670
by
savuporo
on 30 Oct, 2016 02:38
-
-
#671
by
TrevorMonty
on 30 Oct, 2016 04:55
-
Cool photos, just need LV on the pad even if it is just ground tests.
-
#672
by
TrevorMonty
on 02 Nov, 2016 23:44
-
Doesn't Electron have an option for a 3rd stage kick motor? Are the payload capability figures all considered with the utilization of the optional motor?
I haven't read anything about a 3rd stage option. It would allow for earth escape of smallsats or cubesats. Moon express could use modified version of their lander as 3rd stage.
Here link regard 3rd stage kicker. Not sure about electric one, but make senses if performance increases that Vector plan to get from their one is valid.
http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/electron.htm
-
#673
by
Skyrocket
on 02 Nov, 2016 23:59
-
Doesn't Electron have an option for a 3rd stage kick motor? Are the payload capability figures all considered with the utilization of the optional motor?
I haven't read anything about a 3rd stage option. It would allow for earth escape of smallsats or cubesats. Moon express could use modified version of their lander as 3rd stage.
Here link regard 3rd stage kicker. Not sure about electric one, but make senses if performance increases that Vector plan to get from their one is valid.
http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/electron.htm
Here is an illustration of the payload and stage 3 from the RocketLab website. Clearly a solid fuel stage.
-
#674
by
ringsider
on 10 Nov, 2016 08:53
-
-
#675
by
Skyrocket
on 10 Nov, 2016 10:23
-
-
#676
by
orulz
on 10 Nov, 2016 14:02
-
I like the idea of a VLM third stage. It is a pretty interesting and promising technology. The patent application can be found here:
http://www.google.com/patents/US20120234196 The chemistry of it all is way beyond me but they claim comparable performance to solids, full restartability, and what appears to be a better safety profile than many solids. Interestingly it includes lots of methods for pressurizing the tank, such as a hydraulic or electrical piston, a separate gas generator, tapping some of gases from the combustion chamber, or a separate turbopump (maybe electrical, like the Rutherford?)
I have seen no claims regarding performance, ie specific impulse, of this propellant but to me it seems ideally suited to the job of an apogee kick motor. All in all, an excellent tool for Rocket Lab to have in their toolbox.
Sent from my LGL44VL using Tapatalk
-
#677
by
TrevorMonty
on 10 Nov, 2016 16:49
-
I like the idea of a VLM third stage. It is a pretty interesting and promising technology. The patent application can be found here: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120234196
The chemistry of it all is way beyond me but they claim comparable performance to solids, full restartability, and what appears to be a better safety profile than many solids. Interestingly it includes lots of methods for pressurizing the tank, such as a hydraulic or electrical piston, a separate gas generator, tapping some of gases from the combustion chamber, or a separate turbopump (maybe electrical, like the Rutherford?)
I have seen no claims regarding performance, ie specific impulse, of this propellant but to me it seems ideally suited to the job of an apogee kick motor. All in all, an excellent tool for Rocket Lab to have in their toolbox.
Sent from my LGL44VL using Tapatalk
Multiply restarts would make it ideal for deploying lots of cubesats, which most missions will involve.
-
#678
by
ringsider
on 10 Nov, 2016 18:05
-
This Rocket Lab presentation of July 2019 mentions the "Apogee Kick Motor" (page 8 ), but gives no details.
Yes, I agree there is clearly an engine, at least planned, it's just not clear what type.
I guess if it was solid they would need a whole bunch of approvals for handling that material and (potentially) dumping it in the ocean, same with most hypergolics.
-
#679
by
Vultur
on 12 Nov, 2016 06:39
-
I guess if it was solid they would need a whole bunch of approvals for handling that material and (potentially) dumping it in the ocean, same with most hypergolics.
Are solids that bad? I mean, I know nothing about NZ laws, but here in the US hobbyists use APCP motors and it's not that big a deal.
