-
#680
by
ringsider
on 12 Nov, 2016 06:59
-
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.
It's mostly that in that scale and class they are quite a pain to store securely, handle safely, transport, and ultimately initiate. Disposal is also controlled. Just from the images I have seen of the inside of RL I don't think they are setup to handle those materials, at least not in that facility. If I was them I would stick to liquids - they have knowledge and experience and it's a lot less heavily controlled - kerosene and lox are readily available and don't need the same kind of licenses.
-
#681
by
Galactic Penguin SST
on 12 Nov, 2016 07:10
-
So the million dollar question (TM): what works do they still need to do before they can stage an actual launch? It doesn't look like they can even do a static test fire yet and looking at SpaceX's experience of F1 it doesn't look like they can fly within the next 4-6 months. Probably not later than that though.
-
#682
by
ringsider
on 12 Nov, 2016 08:50
-
So the million dollar question (TM): what works do they still need to do before they can stage an actual launch? It doesn't look like they can even do a static test fire yet and looking at SpaceX's experience of F1 it doesn't look like they can fly within the next 4-6 months. Probably not later than that though.
Well I had a long list of things a couple of months ago:
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 subsystems. We are in August November 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.Plus I add to this:
They do not yet have an FAA range ops licence or launch licence. Their range is an FAA-controlled US range, even though in New Zealand:
I'm not sure what they plan, probably suborbital initally, but they need a couple of permits, and there is nothing in the FAA database as yet. Also no NOTAMs in the ICAO database for that area.
-
#683
by
rocx
on 13 Nov, 2016 11:36
-
There has just been a 7.4 magnitude earthquake in New Zealand. It appears to be not very close to the launch site, but it might disrupt some logistics. I hope the people and government of New Zealand will be able to deal with this earthquake and its effects.
-
#684
by
docmordrid
on 13 Nov, 2016 15:50
-
-
#685
by
savuporo
on 13 Nov, 2016 17:00
-
-
#686
by
Alf Fass
on 13 Nov, 2016 20:07
-
Wellington suffered a little damage, but nothing much north of there, I'd be very surprised if Rocket Lab operations were affected at all.
-
#687
by
TrevorMonty
on 16 Nov, 2016 20:47
-
I wonder if RL have picked up some of Firefly propulsion team, great way to get some aerospike and methane engine knowledge.
A methane aerospike power LV would be great follow on to Electron. Firefly switched to RP1 as methane wouldn't work without turbopump, an area RL are experts in.
-
#688
by
Toast
on 16 Nov, 2016 21:17
-
-
#689
by
Davidthefat
on 16 Nov, 2016 22:36
-
I wonder if RL have picked up some of Firefly propulsion team, great way to get some aerospike and methane engine knowledge.
A methane aerospike power LV would be great follow on to Electron. Firefly switched to RP1 as methane wouldn't work without turbopump, an area RL are experts in.
Peter Beck, the CEO of Rocket Lab, has been quoted several times in interviews that the Electron will be the focus of the company. No, "Electron Plus", "Electron Heavy", "Neutron", or any variations of the Electron launch vehicle. The focus is reliability, cost reduction, and volume of production of the existing single core launch vehicle.
-
#690
by
savuporo
on 17 Nov, 2016 00:37
-
-
#691
by
high road
on 17 Nov, 2016 06:58
-
I wonder if RL have picked up some of Firefly propulsion team, great way to get some aerospike and methane engine knowledge.
A methane aerospike power LV would be great follow on to Electron. Firefly switched to RP1 as methane wouldn't work without turbopump, an area RL are experts in.
Peter Beck, the CEO of Rocket Lab, has been quoted several times in interviews that the Electron will be the focus of the company. No, "Electron Plus", "Electron Heavy", "Neutron", or any variations of the Electron launch vehicle. The focus is reliability, cost reduction, and volume of production of the existing single core launch vehicle.
And even if it wasn't, they'd better get this one
flying before they start working on the next model. Get experience with actually launching stuff to space, get some cashflow going, then check if there is room for a whole other development programme. I can't think of any circumstance where it would make sense to do this now instead of when the first development programme has ended (successfully or otherwise)
-
#692
by
Nilof
on 19 Nov, 2016 12:19
-
I don't think methane would benefit rocketlabs, at all. It does not compare well to RP-1 unless you are using it as the working fluid in a turbopump. You could get five or so extra seconds or so of ISP at the expense of a lower fuel density and having to work with a cryogenic fuel. In fact, it might actually decrease ISP if you keep the same batteries because you need more pump power to pump the less dense fuel to the same chamber pressure.
As far as LOX/Hydrocarbon engines go, choice of engine cycle and chamber pressure is a much bigger factor in performance than choice of propellant.
I also don't really see an areospike being much of a benefit on a two-stage vehicle with pump-fed engines. The Rutherford engine has a great specific impulse already, it isn't handicaped by low chamber pressures like pressure-fed engines. The possible improvements to first stage specific impulse are probably not worth the decrease in total thrust due to not being able to fit an engine in the middle.
First stage total thrust is the most important performance factor for a first stage by far, moreso than first stage ISP at sea level. With the same mass ratio and high-altitude Isp, a 10% increase in liftoff thrust can increase the payload more than say a 10% increase in SL Isp. Increasing liftoff T/W ratio from say 1.3 to 1.4 gives the same improvement in fuel efficiency as increasing the Isp during liftoff by 33%.
Imho, the main reason to use an aerospike is because you are forced to due to low chamber pressures, usually because your engine is pressure-fed.
-
#693
by
TrevorMonty
on 19 Nov, 2016 15:26
-
I don't think methane would benefit rocketlabs, at all. It does not compare well to RP-1 unless you are using it as the working fluid in a turbopump. You could get five or so extra seconds or so of ISP at the expense of a lower fuel density and having to work with a cryogenic fuel. In fact, it might actually decrease ISP if you keep the same batteries because you need more pump power to pump the less dense fuel to the same chamber pressure.
As far as LOX/Hydrocarbon engines go, choice of engine cycle and chamber pressure is a much bigger factor in performance than choice of propellant.
I also don't really see an areospike being much of a benefit on a two-stage vehicle with pump-fed engines. The Rutherford engine has a great specific impulse already, it isn't handicaped by low chamber pressures like pressure-fed engines. The possible improvements to first stage specific impulse are probably not worth the decrease in total thrust due to not being able to fit an engine in the middle.
First stage total thrust is the most important performance factor for a first stage by far, moreso than first stage ISP at sea level. With the same mass ratio and high-altitude Isp, a 10% increase in liftoff thrust can increase the payload more than say a 10% increase in SL Isp. Increasing liftoff T/W ratio from say 1.3 to 1.4 gives the same improvement in fuel efficiency as increasing the Isp during liftoff by 33%.
Imho, the main reason to use an aerospike is because you are forced to due to low chamber pressures, usually because your engine is pressure-fed.
Excellent response. Thanks.
-
#694
by
msat
on 21 Nov, 2016 17:58
-
If you go the ride share route on the Electron, it starts at $70k a cubesat according to the website.
How does this work out? 5,000,000/70,000 = ~71
Since I doubt they'll be able to stuff 70 cubesats in the fairing, that cost seems like an arbitrary figure for a ride share on a rocket with probably one larger payload. How often would such a launch option manifest itself?
-
#695
by
LtWigglesworth
on 21 Nov, 2016 18:14
-
If you go the ride share route on the Electron, it starts at $70k a cubesat according to the website.
How does this work out? 5,000,000/70,000 = ~71
Since I doubt they'll be able to stuff 70 cubesats in the fairing, that cost seems like an arbitrary figure for a ride share on a rocket with probably one larger payload. How often would such a launch option manifest itself?
According to the booking page on their website they can fit 24 3U cubesats and 8 1U cubesats in a standard fairing.
-
#696
by
Comga
on 21 Nov, 2016 18:19
-
If you go the ride share route on the Electron, it starts at $70k a cubesat according to the website.
How does this work out? 5,000,000/70,000 = ~71
Since I doubt they'll be able to stuff 70 cubesats in the fairing, that cost seems like an arbitrary figure for a ride share on a rocket with probably one larger payload. How often would such a launch option manifest itself?
According to the booking page on their website they can fit 24 3U cubesats and 8 1U cubesats in a standard fairing.
24*3=72 so they might have meant $70K per U if they price by mass or volume.
-
#697
by
Davidthefat
on 21 Nov, 2016 19:56
-
Is it just me or does the rocketlab website appear to be down right now?
Edit: it seems I was unlucky enough to trying to access it while they were updating it.
-
#698
by
CameronD
on 22 Nov, 2016 00:09
-
There has just been a 7.4 magnitude earthquake in New Zealand. It appears to be not very close to the launch site, but it might disrupt some logistics. I hope the people and government of New Zealand will be able to deal with this earthquake and its effects.
The latest one is a little closer to their operations, but on the opposite side of the country. Must be earthquake season!
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-22/earthquake-hits-new-zealand-north-island/8045512
-
#699
by
LtWigglesworth
on 22 Nov, 2016 00:22
-
Is it just me or does the rocketlab website appear to be down right now?
Edit: it seems I was unlucky enough to trying to access it while they were updating it.
They've also changed the booking pages. Now they offer 6U and 12U slots.
They've also put up videos about the VLM and Instant Eyes programs
